Taylor Lorenz Tried to Ruin Me But I Fought Back!

Hi everybody, this is my first live stream ever, and I was just recording for quite a while. And uh, there was—it wasn't actually live, so I'm going to share this stream so maybe somebody will watch my first live stream. Pretty excited about uh, let's see here, my my first—I'm gonna put my first YouTube live stream uh, okay, all right, let's go.

Okay, so what I want to do in this live stream is essentially go over what happened. And maybe the best way to do it is to have somebody else explain it, but I can give some commentary on uh, everything and help people sort of see uh, just my side of the story. And uh, Taylor Lorenz wrote a defamatory article about me. Um, that I filed a lawsuit against Taylor Lorenz and the New York Times over in August of last year. And the article came out in August of 2020, and it completely—I'm not saying destroyed my life in uh, exaggerated way—it really did destroy my life and a career that I worked very hard to build. So let's check this out. I needed to re-record this because the first time I was low energy. Taylor Lorenz is emotionally draining, but this chapter is important because in this chapter we dismantle Taylor's reporting on August 2020. Taylor published another damaging piece on a female business woman. The article was titled "Making it big online, getting signed isn't everything," and the subject of this article was a woman named Ari Jacobs.

On casual reading, this article is good; it paints a compelling picture of talent manager Aria Jacobs and her content houses manipulating teenagers, misleading them, stealing money from them on their quest to fame. That's the thing about Taylor; she is extremely good at writing convincing narratives. She's like an agent in the Matrix; to the untrained eye, you would never notice the deception. Once you've been inside for a few years, you're like, "Wait a minute, upgrades indeed." Taylor is no longer combing through old Twitter accounts, so allow me to poke some holes in Taylor's reporting and blow up this this story like there's 80 pounds of Tannerite inside it.

First issue: Taylor, the New York Times reporter, is reporting on R. Jacobs management agency while not disclosing Taylor herself is signed to a competing agency, UTA. UTA is a direct competitor to R. Jacob's influences. Nor does Taylor disclose that a few months prior to this article she had wrote a glowing article about UTA. And let me parry what the New York Times is going to say immediately because I know how this game is played; they're going to say Taylor was signed to UTA prior to joining the New York Times; therefore, does not need to disclose this conflict of interest to her readers. Convenient, but okay. Taylor does not disclose her and Ari Jacobs—let me let me just break that down really quickly so you guys kind of understand why it's important. So uh, Taylor Lorenz is represented by a talent agency, and she's been represented by this talent agency ever since she joined the New York Times, apparently, according to the New York Times. And this is where you kind of have to understand who is at the top of these um, food chains. So let me just show you uh, the I'm going to show you the rules that basically the New York Times sets for ethical journalism, and they have a link uh, thanks Joseph, this is my first live stream too, and you're my very first comment, so that's very nice of you to tune in. Uh, so I want you guys to see this; this is rules for specialized from the New York Times ethical journalism rules, and this is what it says: "The Times has exceptional influence in such fields as theater, music, art, dance, publishing, fashion, and the restaurant industry. We are constantly scrutinized for the slightest whiff of favoritism; therefore, staff members working in those areas have a special duty to guard against the conflicts of interest or the appearance of conflict. Reporters, reviewers, critics, and their editors in the Book Review, The Times Magazine, blah blah blah, okay, they may not they may not suggest agents, publishers, producers, or galleries to aspiring authors, playwrights, composers, or artists. They may they may not suggest chefs to restaurant owners or designers to clothing manufacturers. They may not recommend authors, playwrights, composers, or other artists to agents, publishers, producers, or galleries." So they're not allowed to have this conflict of interest, and yet Taylor Lorenz is represented by UTA. And now this is what's even more interesting: well, Taylor Lorenz has a book deal with Simon and Schuster, which was procured for her by her talent agents, and those talent agencies are UTA, and UTA wanted to sign some of the people that I was working with, including Charlie D'Amelio, who I think has over 100 million followers now. And this is what you guys need to really look at; check this out; this is uh, from 2014: "Atria Books and United Talent Agency or UTA to launch Keywords Press. Atria Books and United Talent Agency to launch Keywords Press. New imprint will publish books by digital stars. New books from top digital influencers Shay Charles, Shane Dawson, iJustine, Joey Graceffa are among those planned." So Simon and Schuster, the publisher that signed that did a deal with Taylor Lorenz through UTA, is business partners with UTA, at least on this project; who knows how many others. So these people are all in business together. So why is it that Taylor is writing a story about me—her talent agencies—com—somebody that her talent agency would have a real uh, benefit and to take in them taking me out in the sense of like, you know, getting me out of the way uh, so that people don't work with me? But then look at this; this is actually just so blatant uh, these let me just have this what's called these agents we're assigning all the influencers. Check out this article that Taylor writes in the New York Times: "These top Hollywood agents are signing all the influencers. TikTok stars aren't going to Hollywood for film and TV careers; being influential is a whole business." And who does Taylor Lorenz feature in this article? None other than, at the time, Greg Goodfried, the co-head of digital talent at United Talent Agency. Anywhere in this article does Taylor mention that she is represented by UTA? Nope. Nope, she doesn't. And does she mention any little guys? I mean, she mentions WME, CAA, but does she mention any of the little guys that are, you know, actually representing all the influencers? Because at this time I think I had—I represented 85 TikTok stars, and UTA did not. So seems like a conflict of interest, right? Yeah, an inside job potentially.

All right, now let's go back to Boast Wiki here because he's the man. All righty, who, by the way, like when he put this out, so many journalists were scared to report on Taylor, and it's just—it's just—I'm very happy that people—I mean, even I'm not as scared—I mean, I'm a little scared, especially because I have a lawsuit with her, but I'm I'm only telling you guys what's already out there. All right, a friendly relationship prior to Taylor stabbing her right in the back. Here's a text where Taylor is thanking Ari Jacobs and hoping she's staying safe during COVID. Taylor writes that Gary Vaynerchuk is not associated with Influences but fails to disclose that Gary Vaynerchuk has a very personal relationship with Ari Jacobs of Influences. Taylor fails to disclose these photos. Okay, why does it matter that why does it matter that Gary Vaynerchuk is even mentioning Taylor Lorenz's article? Gary Vee has written many books about influencers, about social media; he is considered kind of like the god of the social media world and influencers. Influencers know who he is, and they've been so inspired by him. I met GaryVee—you can check my channel—I met him in 2009; I did a video with him that I recorded with my Blackberry, and I looked up to Gary before he was famous, and I had a friendship with him, and I considered him a mentor, and I even was doing brand deals with—uh, GaryVee owns a marketing company that works with brands, and they were working with me on TikTok brand deals. Okay, so just remember that. Let me keep this going. Taken in the girl in the valley house. Oh, hang on, those are interesting. Hang on a sec. Sorry, sorry, this is my first live stream, and I'm trying to—here we go. Taylor doesn't disclose that Gianni Singer, one of her subjects—let me go back a second. Influences glowing article about UTA. And let me parry what the New York Times is going to say immediately because I know how this game is played; they're going to say Taylor was signed to UTA prior to joining the New York Times; therefore, does not need to disclose this conflict of interest to her readers. Convenient, but okay. Taylor does not disclose that her and Ari Jacobs had a friendly relationship prior to Taylor stabbing her right in the back. Here's a text where Taylor is thanking Ari Jacobs and hoping she's staying safe during COVID. Taylor writes that Gary Vaynerchuk is not associated with Influences but fails to disclose that Gary Vaynerchuk has a very personal relationship with Ari Jacobs of Influences. Taylor fails to disclose these photos taken in the girl in the valley house. Those are interesting, huh? Healer doesn't just—so why wouldn't Taylor want to talk about the fact that some influencers wrote free and Ari is a [ __ ] inside their TikTok creator houses? Well, because then it would show potentially, right, that these influencers were ungrateful, immature, and bullying me. Right, I'm an adult; I can handle it, uh, and I don't know what caused that. I don't know if talking to Taylor and a little seed—a bad seed getting in their ear caused it. I don't know; we won't find out until we get discovery for sure, right? And we have a lot of evidence, but uh, let's keep going. And disclose that Johnny Singer, one of her subjects, has no management contract with Influences. Okay, that's another big one. Imagine if you are a business owner and a disgruntled old employee goes to the press and says all these negative things about working for you, but they actually never worked for you. So how do how do you as a journalist at the New York Times write an article and include a subject that has nothing to do with anything? Why would she, you know, it's almost like if you're that entrepreneur or that business where that person is bad-mouthing you, and you actually denied hiring them, and then they go and bad-mouth you saying they worked for you and you're terrible. I mean, how does that even make sense? It's just bizarre. Taylor doesn't disclose that the house in question, the Girls in the Valley house, was Bella Thorne's house. Now, why wouldn't Taylor disclose that? Is that maybe because Taylor wants to preserve her own relationship with Bella Thorne while happily trashing Ari Jacobs? I think it is. Now, part of Taylor's problems, and she has many, may be because she didn't want to accept much on background. I know this because I have all of Taylor's emails. Taylor thinks she's the only person that can play this game. Okay, you guys might not know what "on background" means, but when you're a journalist, "on background" means that they can take a look at evidence, but they can't print it uh, on the record. So, and they that you can share information with them, but they can't quote you uh, that's sort of a journalist or practice that uh, so that they can write the story but without exposing things that uh, potentially like in my case, if I have let's say a brand partnership, if I if one of my clients has a brand deal with a big company, and let's say that big company pays late, I can't go trash that big company and tell them, hey, you know, this person paid late or these guys paid late to the press because I have an NDA with that brand, so I have contracts that I need to abide by as a business owner. I know she moved to California where life is easy and she can interview children. Welcome to New York. I can see that Taylor gave R. Jacobs only 72 hours to respond to all these questions before publication and then only 20—take that back—only eight hours to respond to an entirely new set of questions prior to publication. Indeed, I can see that Taylor really wanted to nail Ari Jacobs because she was probing over missed rent payments, personal misrent payments from 2018. Okay, here's—let me break both of those things down. So recently, Taylor Lorenz, who now works at the Washington Post, claimed to have reached out to Elita Legal Bytes, who is another female entrepreneur, and basically Legal Bytes called her out and said, "You never reached out to me," and so did that umbrella guy. And Elita also lives, I believe, in China, and how, you know, how are you supposed to just give this person an hour to respond? I don't know what the details are in terms of how long it took, but the point is this is a very normal tactic, and people need to pay attention because journalism is about getting both sides. If it's about getting both sides, if it's not about taking somebody out, then why not wait till they can comment? You know what's so important about a story that you can't get both sides? Maybe it's because you don't want to get both sides, right? To which R's lawyer—humorous. Oh, and and by the way, when she starts asking me all these questions via email, she is because she—it seemed to me like she couldn't get any dirt on me—she started looking into uh, if I paid my rent, my personal rent late um, you know, years before uh, you know, I hadn't paid uh, the content house. This has nothing to do with those the stories she's writing about, but it's kind of like how she used to look into uh, old tweets of people; she's just trying to find something to to hook on to. And I'm no perfect person, but I really was doing things above board in this business. I had advisors who were very very uh, talented and well-known people in entertainment that were helping me because they believed in me, and they knew I was trying to do the right thing and help these people. They responded: "I failed to see the relevance to the claim here." So this is what my attorney would actually tell me on all content houses, and it is the kids who have in fact not paid rent at all. While I understand we aren't in a court of law, this would be deemed character evidence and circumstantial at best and would be inadmissible in an actual claim if factual, which I do not admit it is. It is purely dirt being used to paint Ari in a negative light, and dirt used to paint Ari in a negative light seems to be the main goal of Taylor Lorenz's article. How do I know this? Well, a variety of ways. First, there was a little enterprising Mississippi reporter who talked about this subject, and he noted Taylor chose to liberally quote some individuals who were promoting a negative narrative of RH Jacobs while omitting or choosing not to quote Ari's own rebuttals to these characterizations. A good example of Taylor's unscrupulous reporting here is the line she writes in her article: "Gary Vee says he has no affiliation with Influences." This is a jujitsu-like contortion to say something that is legally correct but almost entirely false with context, but that is Taylor's way. The full context—the actual context—not provided with Taylor is that while Gary Vaynerchuk has no business relationship with Influences company, GaryVee does have a personal personal relationship with Ari Jacobs, a relationship I can document with video that shows RH Jacobs and GaryVee are close enough that one of Ari's clients received a brand deal for this Super Bowl directly because of her relationship with Gary Vaynerchuk. Okay, let me break that down just in case you guys didn't get it. So Taylor wants to destroy my credibility, right? So here's Gary Vee, one of the most looked-up-to guys in my space. Lo, he discovered Logan Paul; um, he's inspiring, he's kind, he's all about empathy, and when someone like that says, "Hey, Ari's cool," that gives me credibility in the space. So Taylor has to destroy my credibility and destroy it—this this article was so bad, but one of the things that like really hurt me the most was um, was just that, you know, it was Gary had to get a phone call, and I'm sorry that Gary had to get a phone call or you know, his people, and he had to like—he had to think like, "Is there any way that Ari did this?" It's just—it was embarrassing; it was humiliating. Sorry, it was humiliating, and um, I don't want to be like crying on the internet like Taylor um, but when someone that you really respect is put next to your name in a negative way, it just—it—it really hurt me, and especially because I just didn't want my mentor to—I didn't want my mentor to think badly of me. So she had to destroy my credibility, but the fact is I was able to get one of my clients a Super Bowl commercial because Gary's company was the one hiring for it. And so in the article she essentially writes that, you know, she puts a quote by somebody that says, you know, Ari goes around saying that she knows Gary Vee uh, and in the very next sentence she's like, "We called Gary, and he said he's not associated with Influences." Well, yeah, he wasn't an investor; he wasn't an official advisor or anything like that with Influences, but it—the way that it was written made it seem like I was just a clout-chasing name-dropper. But this is the actual call of when um, Gary offered the deal—the Super Bowl deal—to that client. That's the scoop. Wow. Wow. I couldn't wait to do this phone call because I get to uh, go back to friends who I enjoy and change the course of somebody else's career who I enjoyed using. Very quickly, I'm about to cry. Thank you. Thank you so much. You're welcome. But I'll be honest with you, like this is really about you and Ari for me um, you know, you know, and and honestly, you know, I love Ari—this is really about you and Ari for me. I love Ari. This is a place where I can do something nice. Really excited that we were able to put this together. Um, Gary and I have both known Ari for a very very long time. We're huge fans. This is Gary's business partner talking—of everything that she's up to out there [Music] and just her as a human being. Your shipping manager left to find themselves leaving you lost. You need to hire. I need Indeed. Thank you for the person that was like, "Hey, take a breath." I appreciate it, and I I uh, I'm not putting this out for sympathy; I just I really want people to understand why we we have to hold these journalists accountable. Like, so let's keep watching. And these bullets of misleading statements are sewn like a scarlet letter throughout the article to needlessly obliterate Ari's character. Taylor reports the influencers signed by R. Jacobs living in the Kids Next Door house were told they would quote "have to pay more in rent." Jacob's lawyers responded to this allegation prior to the article in their emails and called it "100 percent false." Taylor ignored this. Indeed, the TikTok tenants—teenagers inside Ari's content house—had admitted to Ari and her lawyers that they had taken side deals with brands in order to deliberately cut out ren influencers of contractually obligated commission. One of the TikTok tenants, Jesse Underhill, said that another one, Marcus Zolan, had told him to speak negatively about Ari to Taylor in order to avoid paying commissions or rent, indicating that they were able to damage Ari and Influences enough they wouldn't have the resources to litigate the breaches and contract. Indeed, I have Jesse Underhill on record saying: "Is it true that you talked to Ari and wanted to move into the house after Ari's talk on the balcony at the content house?" Jesse: "Yes." "Is it true that Taylor Haran—" Okay, let me explain this to you guys. So you have influencers that have uh, signed a production agreement with my company. Why did they sign a production agreement? It's because they lived in a a house in uh, the hills that cost eighteen thousand five hundred dollars a month. They couldn't even get approved to that house without me signing a lease and agreeing that I would be responsible for the rent. And even though I had brand deals lined up to help cover some of the rent, the influencers were each going to have to pay I think it was like around fifteen hundred dollars each in order to live at the house. And if I—I don't remember how many there were, but essentially it was about half that they were responsible for—1500 each—and then I had a brand deal that was going to pay the difference um, and what happened was they they got the press from being in these houses; they got to collaborate with all these influencers, and then they—I guess they decided that they could do better without me, and uh, I don't know if—

This was after talking to Taylor Lorenz. I don't know the timing, uh, but I do know that, uh, they knew that if they destroyed my company, then I wouldn't be able to go and sue them and say, "Hey, you owe me 20% of everything that you make, and by the way, you, you know, now you have to pay for these damages on the house that I owe and all this stuff."

So after the New York Times piece comes out, Jesse Underhill, which is one of Taylor's sources that said that I was, uh, taking money from them and all that stuff, he comes out and tries to move back into the house. If I was so abusive and awful, why did he want to move back into the content house?

But then this is what, uh, Jesse Underhill said to the journalist: "Fast—I am using that term closely—you to get negative info, dirt on Ari." Jesse: "Um, inadvertently, yes. She constantly asked for quote, 'dirt on Ari,' and said that my statement would make or break the case."

Is it true that Marcus advised you to talk to the New York Times to get out of your contract? Jesse: "Yes. I wasn't happy with Ari at the time and didn't want to be in the contract anymore. To speak negatively about Ari to Taylor in order to avoid paying commissions or prevent indicating that they were able to damage Ari and influences enough they wouldn't have the resources to litigate the breaches and contract. But I can go beyond that. I have another 16-year-old TikToker who's familiar with the situation on background who says that Taylor spoke to she or he and said that speaking to her and giving negative information on Ari would really help them get Instagram verified—a little carried on a stick, meaning, 'if you help me, give me quotes, I'll put you in the article that'll make you more famous and probably get you Instagram verified.'"

But when the TikToker declined to say anything negative about Ari, Taylor told them she was disappointed in them and then took their quotes out of the article. This source is a minor, but I corroborated it with their parents. And I, okay, do you understand what happened there?

So most influencers know that in order to get a blue check mark on Instagram, and probably on Twitter and the other platforms, you have to have mainstream media press articles written about you where you're the subject. That little blue check mark is a, is the holy grail as an influencer because you are basically being handed a little trophy that everybody can see on your social media page that says you're important and people should care about you. And when you d—you can DM other celebrities and they'll, they'll notice you more because you have a blue check mark and so do they. And when you leave comments on Instagram, typically the blue check mark comments show up first, so you're just getting more exposure, more attention.

And so I don't know if Taylor told, uh, the influencers specifically, "Hey, if you talk to me for a New York Times article, you're going to get a blue check mark," but I do know that Taylor's very close with people on Instagram. I don't think she would actually help them. I think she was, like he said, dangling a carrot on a stick, but this is sort of quid pro quo: You give me what I want—negative info on Ari—and you might just get verified.

I know anonymous sources are annoying. I don't want to have to use anonymous sources, but I am weighing the strength of the argument while simultaneously balancing the fact that I have multiple young TikTokers and reporters who do not want to go off background for fear of being retaliated against by Taylor. Did you get that, guys? Journalists didn't want to go off background; they didn't want to be on the record because they were scared of being retaliated against by Taylor Lorenz. This is just a year ago; this is before she's getting called out like she is right now, Taylor, in their future careers, which I don't think is entirely unreasonable given Taylor's history and track record of lying and deliberately going after people who disagree with her.

[Music] You know, basically the same thing again. You know, bad information said that Taylor had offered Instagram verification. Yep. I mean, she said, you know, my words were, she said, "This will help you get verified," okay, so implying this article that I'm writing will help you get Instagram verified. Yes. And then the other part was the not derp, but only wanted negative information. But it's not even that difficult. I think by even looking at the footage, we can see Taylor's influence on these kids, as some of the TikTok influencers use very specific language—language that makes me think they got it from Taylor.

Waivers that anything—are you acting as an agency? Aren't you acting as an agency without a license? So all your documents are invalid. No, legally. Tiana, are you an attorney? I'm legally smarter than you, apparently. Let me be clear: They signed no talent agency contract with influences; they signed management or production contracts—a small but very important legal detail that Taylor seems to obfuscate in her reporting. Like Taylor obfuscates the fact that the TikTokers didn't call the police; Ari Jacobs called the police to the house. Clearly doesn't bother reporting that fact, just like Taylor does not bother—okay, this is a big deal. She, Taylor, writes in the New York Times article something to the effect of that I was intimidating them at the house and and fighting with them, and then, uh, the police were called to the house. But Taylor knows the only thing that I corroborated to Taylor was that I called the police to the house twice. So for her to imply that the cops were called against me is astounding; it's, it's just—keep watching all the reporting. Someone spray-painted "Ari is a [ __ ]" inside the Girls in the Valley house. Now some TikTokers say Ari Jacobs did this; Ari says some TikTokers did this. I'll let you decide, but I think it's important to point out those photos somehow never made it into the reporting.

But what did make it in, and I think this is important because it shows the depths of Taylor's dishonesty, is a quote by Devion Young, a really mean and insidious quote. It has no business—this is really bad—except again to hurt Ari's character. You see, Taylor quotes Drip [ __ ] founder Devion Young who says, "She, Ari, manipulates you; it's a nightmare." Devion said he said she used nude photos of his to shame him, quote, "Right before reported way she leaked my nudes and sent them to business partners, people in my house and potential investors to slander my name, saying I was unprofessional." But Ari did not leak Devion's nudes, and Taylor has to know this because Taylor writes in the emails, "No one is alleging Ari leaked nudes," so Taylor knows Davian is likely lying to her. I have the emails: "No one is alleging Ari leaked nudes," and then includes the quote, "She leaked my nudes." What kind of reporting are we doing here? Because I also have the text between Ari and Devion regarding his nudes. You see, someone had made Ari aware that Devion Young's nudes were circulating on the internet. She then texts Devion to ask him, "Why are his nudes on the internet?" And his response manages to be unbelievable, claiming that his phone was getting fixed and therefore someone had access to his iCloud and leaked his nudes everywhere. These are the texts; you can read them.

[Music] Okay, imagine the brands that you work with, professional relationships, reading that you leaked nudes of your clients, allegedly, in this article. And the reality of it is that I was managing a house called Drip Crib where there was a bunch of adult men in that house, over 18, and a house called Girls in the Valley with a bunch of young women in it that were mostly above 18; one was 17 and a half when she was not living there, but she was staying there for a couple of weeks. So when another manager hit me up and said, "Hey, you should check on the Drip Crib founder, Devion, who you're associated to because there's nude photos of him all over the internet and your company is attached to it and saying that he sent—you know, alleging that he sent these images to a a very young girl," I think it was like a 16- or 14-year-old girl, I forget what they were alleging now. I don't know or have any reason to believe that that's true, but I had to look into it, right? So you, my company being associated to a house full of young girls and a house full of young men who are collaborating together, who I don't have an eye on 24/7. What if Devion had been a predator? What if not? And even regardless of that, who wants—unless it was an OnlyFans house, which it wasn't—why would you want a guy with nude pictures all over the internet attached to a brand that you're trying to make a family-friendly brand where you're trying to get Fortune 500 brand deals? I didn't want that, and I wanted to look into it mainly to look out for the girls because, God forbid, there was something nefarious going on. I had non-disclosure agreements with all the people that I worked with, including Devion—a mutual non-disclosure agreement, non-disparagement agreement. So you know, why, why wouldn't I look into this if there's saying there's nude images all over about, about this person? And so, but that doesn't mean I leaked the images. I, I mean, how could I have leaked them? He's saying they were already leaked to 200,000 people. Hmm. So why did Taylor Lorenz write in the article that I leaked his nude images? That's, I think, illegal. But even more compelling that something shady is taking place is the fact that all the allegations alleged by Taylor and her article against Ari Jacobs curiously the exact same allegations are alleged against Devion Young at around the same time. Let me quote: "Multiple altercations have broken out between members of Drip [ __ ] and its staff due to a total lack of income from any of its resident creators. Former residents complain that Drip Trip manager Davion Young is incompetent and extremely self-centered. Drug [ __ ] has not made any payments on the mansion they rent since March. The property management company has been trying to entice them to leave or a victim but has been unsuccessful due to LA's current coveted freeze on evictions. Since March, no rent or utility payments have been received by the property manager."

[Music] Are unable to make rent payments because they are not landing gigs and brand deals they were initially promised by Devion Young. Taylor makes no mention of the fact that Devion Young has the exact same allegations against him while simultaneously liberally quoting him as a character assassination witness against Ari Jacobs, claiming she leaked his nudes. While Young may say that and Taylor can quote him, it does not make the quote true. I can play this game, too. I can play this game all day. I can quote Ari saying that a UTA agent told her not to worry about Taylor because Taylor just wants to be famous.

Okay, let me explain this. So, uh, an agent at UTA who I was friendly with at the time calls me a couple of days before Taylor's article goes live and says, "Hey, I talked to Taylor; she actually wants to talk to you. She thinks you're really nice and, uh, she, she just wants to get your side of the story." Because I thought maybe there was something negative coming. And this agent from UTA, by the way, I don't even know that Taylor's represented by UTA at this point. I'm thinking this guy from UTA is trying to help me out, uh, and this guy is asking me essentially to just go on and hop into the lion's mouth all on my own. Oh yeah, go talk to Taylor; she's, she's great; she, she, she likes you; she thinks you're really nice. Are you kidding me? I was pissed. I was just like, "How stupid do these people think I am?" And I called the people that were, you know, in my corner at that time and they said, "You know, do not, uh, do not, uh, talk to her. She, she hit me up and was like, 'Do you want to chat?' I said—" and I didn't respond. I think I asked like, "Yeah, what do you want to chat about?" She wouldn't say what she wanted to chat about, and so I referred her to my attorney who answered so many questions. And, uh, somebody asked, "Did Devion say all the things that Taylor wrote he said?" I, I'm assuming so, if, if they allowed her to include the quotes in the article. But if you publish a story—I'm not an attorney, but from what I understand, like even if, if somebody gives you a quote and it's not true, like you were supposed to go check if that quote is true, but if you publish it, then now you were responsible for that defamatory piece of content that you wrote. Taylor just wants to be famous. I was told by an agent. Okay, I just explained that. Okay, perhaps I had a little bit of an edge on her.

Uh oh, oh, sorry guys, I don't know, is the easy way for businesses like yours to advertise? My bad. Okay, um, here's, here's the thing, too, uh, people are like, "What, what did she have against you? Like, why did she want to come after you?" I didn't know she was rep'd by UTA. There wasn't that many experts on TikTok. I'm not saying I'm the best person ever, that I invented TikTok or anything like that, but there's just very few people in this industry that understand how this world works. And at the time, nobody really understood the world of TikTok and who was blowing up on TikTok. And so, uh, when I started getting reached out to by, uh, you know, maybe like a publication that wanted a quote about TikTok, I don't know, maybe Taylor thought I was encroaching on her space, uh, I mean, go watch Taylor in interviews. I think she wants to be the only person that gets interviewed. I mean, she, uh, is on 20/20 discussing cases; she's on—she was in a movie about TikTokers on Netflix. She, she wants this press, and just even recently going on a, uh, I think it was MSNBC and crying saying she's a victim. It's like she wants attention, and that's okay, but at my expense? Why? Why? If she was—people have said, "Oh, maybe she was jealous of you." Even if she was, there was room for both of us. I, I, I just don't understand. Okay, exploits children when I would argue it is Taylor who exploits children with her leading questions and her massive power imbalance to get the quotes she wants.

Is it true that Taylor harassed—I am using that term closely—you to get negative info, dirt on Ari? Jesse: "Um, inadvertently—"

[Music] A yes, year-old is saying this.

[Music] I think

[Music] And I can probably predict what Taylor would say against this: that I've been tricked by Ari, that I didn't speak to Marcus or Benji, and that she did the real reporting. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. As far as I'm concerned, currently on the New York Times article that Tiana Singer was promised money and fame and signed a management contract, but that is false. Whether Tiana lied to you or you misreported it, Taylor, I doubt you.

Okay, so earlier in the video, if you guys saw the young lady who was basically yelling at me and saying, uh, I asked her, I said, "Tiana, are you an attorney?" She goes, "I'm legally smarter than you are." That's the girl who's saying that she was managed by me, but she didn't, but she actually didn't sign a management agreement with me, but you saw a sign management contract because your subject, Tiana Singer, never signed a management contract with influences because here it is, still waiting to get signed. The only thing Tiana signed was a liability and footage waiver for being inside the Girls in the Valley house. I have it right here as well. Here is Tiana's signature, May 23, 2020, and it promises no money or no fame, but I guess Taylor missed the nuance of these contracts. Taylor's reporting has holes in it the size of Swiss cheese. Her methods are questionable at best, and she operates from a place of fear because unfinished any disagreement with Taylor's narrative events is met with both public and private vitriol, like when Reuters did a story on Ari Jacobs and Taylor said this on Twitter. Or wait, okay, uh, Reuters does a story about me, off like right after Taylor, uh, did her article. Taylor goes on Twitter and she goes, "Reuters doing no research and covering a TikTok house. Residents describe as a quote, 'living nightmare,' whose manager has been accused of withholding tens of thousands of dollars from talent. This is a manager, one talent said, leaked his nudes as retaliation when he tried to leave." Like, Taylor, you just put out a four-page article in the New York Times alleging that I leaked people's nudes, I took advantage of him, and then a Reuters, which is a very sort of neutral company, doesn't does a story about my house, and she comes in and says, "Reuters, what the hell are you talking about? This girl was already canceled by me, so you're not allowed to write about her, right?" That's kind of what she's saying. Wait a minute, what about Taylor? You'll know this story when female reporter Christy Smith interviewed Ari Jacobs after you did and ran a story, and then you went around this female reporter's back, called her boss and ranted to her editor that it was irresponsible to interview Ari Jacobs, that you should not be giving Ari Jacobs a platform because she's a literal abuser. Taylor thrashes one woman. Okay, did you guys get that, uh, a reporter, Chrissy Smythe, does an article doesn't even have anything to do with Taylor Lorenz; it's just saying like how this entrepreneur is trying to rebuild after getting canceled. Taylor gets wind that this reporter is doing a positive story about me and calls her boss and warns him, bullies him, and says, "If you write this story, you will be pumping up on a literal abuser." Wait a minute, what about—okay.

Taylor, you'll know this story. Sorry. Female reporter Christy Smith interviewed Ari Jacobs after you did and ran a story. Oh, by the way, this is—sorry—exclusive interview. Interview cancelled. Tick-tock. Super agent Ari Jacob explain how she's trying to rebuild. This journal is just like trying to help me out because she, she's like this, this woman is, is someone that was, you know, at least uh, somebody that had knowledge of this space and and and then this article came about and then you went around this female reporter's back, called her boss and ranted to her editor that it was irresponsible to interview alright Jacobs, that you should not be giving Rijk it's a platform. This is the reporter Christy Smythe. I, I uh, she's she's messaging me. She says, "Well, Taylor actually complained to my boss." Isn't that nuts? She went on a rant calling you literally an abuser. Neither my boss nor I thinks this sounds remotely accurate. Platform because she's a literal abuser. Taylor thrashes one woman, and when another woman reports on that woman, she goes behind that woman's back and calls her boss to get her in trouble. These actions strike me as deeply troubling and tyrannical. What Taylor like to call my boss as well, the number is Joh n316.

So this New York Times reporter has a possible and very real conflict of interest, reporting on one agency while signed to a competitor, but doesn't disclose this at all and then is demonstrated selectively pulling clothes to procure evidence to push Ari Jacobs, like so many women prior, into a negative light. This should be a warning to any influencer, TikToker, YouTuber. This reporter is dishonest. Okay, this was put out June 8th, 2021. We were warning people about Taylor long ago. I, I, you know, I think Elita from Legal Bites probably knew that I had a lawsuit against her, but you know, nobody really knew that much about it, but, but I'm just—this has been going on for a long time. How many lives is Taylor Lorenz going to destroy before she is taken off her high horse and held accountable? They have an agenda, and if you stand in the way of their agenda, they will move to crush you. And not to belabor the point, but I think it's worth noting Taylor went after Claudia and Jackie Oshiri, two female entrepreneurs, for not telling the gender line. She went after her colleague Zineb. She went after female founder Steph Corey. She went after female developer Nathan. She went after female immigrant founder Ari Jacobs and then went after the female reporter for reporting on R Jacobs. Taylor is all about building patterns to prove a narrative.

I think Taylor has a pattern. She told you this is why Black creators can't be great because of their teams. And I was wondering is that, that's—she said that to you? She did say that. I mean, I'm just, just being honest. So she, she when the New York Times didn't get what they wanted, she says this is—she, she kind of attacks you. The person that uh, Bose Wiki is interviewing right here is a Black woman, a very young Black woman who is at in college uh, and has her own public relations company. This woman was representing a house of all Black influencers who Taylor wanted to do a story on, and this PR person asked Taylor, "What about them would you like to do the story about?" "I'll give you the exclusive on that one thing," but another media company wanted to do a different story highlighting a different piece of information about these Black uh, this Black TikTok house. So you have their public relations person who let somebody else have a story, and so Taylor now is on the phone with her berating her because uh, she allowed this and I guess it scooped Taylor or Taylor felt like it scooped the story. She said that is why Black creators can't be great because of people like you. Can you imagine? Black creators can't be great.

Yeah, it definitely made—I mean, my, my experience of industry was challenged, my everything, right in front of my client. But I mean, I'm not hearing someone who um, you know, works for the New York Times and you know, it's been an industry for a long time. She said she started as a publicist, and I don't know what I'm talking about, as far as she said she's—Taylor Lorenz said, "I started as a publicist and you don't know what you're talking about," to the publicist of the TikTok house of the Black creators. What kind of narcissistic person says something like that? Journalist. She said, "I used to do your job. Now I work at the New York Times, but I used to do your job better than you." Being an exclusive concludes everything, and like I said, you have to be specific, given you said you didn't know what you were talking about. Yeah, to you or to your client. So you guys are all on a group call. She's—Taylor Lorenz is on a group call with Brandy and her client, and she's basically shaming her in front of her client. What kind of person does that? It just, it's beyond me. And she tells your client that you don't know what you're doing as a publicist and that—and Taylor then says, "I used to work as a publicist. Your publicist doesn't know what she's doing," and then she says, "This is why Black creators can't be great," all while you're on the call. How did that make you feel?

Um, in the moment, it made me feel like the audacity of this person who has not felt or been a part of our struggle, as far as advocates for these creators, come in and tell us why they aren't great. I'm one of those people. I'm a leader, too. I love advocates for creators, like I was as well. Perspectives, but it was an insult because for someone who has dedicated their college experience to making to ensuring that these digital creators didn't have successfully done it—these digital creators get the um, get the exposure, the money they deserve, whatever—and it was, it was really insulting. And and that is what Taylor Lorenz did to me, too. You're talking about people who are championing these social media influencers who haven't had their break, and we are putting our whole lives aside. I was in my mid-30s. I didn't go on dates. I didn't um, I didn't do anything but focus on how am I going to make these kids into stars? How am I going to be there for them? How am I going to be a mentor when they're having a bad day? How I can, how can I lift them up? So for Taylor Lorenz to then come as acting like she's the hero because she knows she has power, right? She has power to put these influencers into mainstream consciousness, which I can't do because I don't have a column at the New York Times. She knows that, but now she's going to say everybody behind the scenes, you're worthless. The intentions of what she said in that moment couldn't have been to us to take—he choose to change as much as trying to hurt me. Do you hear what she said? She goes, "The intentions couldn't have been anything less than her trying to hurt me in that moment," and I agree. Why else would you do that? If you are both on the same team, then why would you put somebody down like that? If you both want these influencers to get credit, these African-American influencers in a house, do you get what I'm saying? And I would—when she said, "You're trying to ruin their opportunity," was that on the phone call, too? Yeah. So Distractify ran a story, and then Taylor said, "You're trying to ruin their opportunity. This is why Black creators can't be great, and and you don't know how to do your job," all because Distractify ran a story. Yeah. Now that you're saying that, yeah, yeah, I'm curious, do you think she said all that stuff on the call because she thought she could get away with saying it to you?

She thought she could get away with saying it? 100%. What a smart young lady that said that. So there's uh, looks like eight or nine iterations of this uh, I'm going to wrap it up, but I do want to sort of play the end here because Bose Wiki is such a cool guy. He really put himself on the line to make this video, and I'm just one story amongst, you know, 10 or whatever, but I want you to just—because Taylor likes to say that um, she's being attacked by right-wing uh, radicals, so let's just hear what he has to say at the end here. "Hope I don't care or her gender nor her value as a human being. Taylor trolls for negative narratives on public figures to make her reporting go viral, and when she can't find any, she stitches them together with tweets, teenagers, and troubling quotes. She is quick to judge her subjects negatively, slow to divulge her own conflicts of interest, and rapid to use her gender is both a pro bar to verbally bludgeon women and as a shield to obfuscate accountability by men. She is a strategic promoter of her own work and a swift destroyer of other peoples in the court of public opinion. She is a bully pushing people around on the playground. Okay, I'm in a Twitter world, Philly deep now. I hope you guys give Phil a piece of your mind. So funny, you can't tell what's a joke." Do you think she said all that stuff on the call because she thought she could get whatever saying it to you?

When I was a teenager, I worked at McDonald's. I grew up outside a small Midwest town, and there were not a lot of job opportunities. Taylor went to an 80,000 a year definitively Swiss boarding school. Serving fries is not as romantic as dancing for TikTok, but I did learn honesty and integrity. I made many mistakes in my youth, but later when I wanted to do more in my life, I moved to New York City in my car. I arrived in New York City with an old car, a 500 camera, and knowing nobody. I grabbed any journalism job I could find, and it took me years to make any money or meet people in the YouTube community. Now, not every entertainer is an angel, but when I watch a supposed star reporter for the New York Times so dishonestly write about YouTubers and TikTokers and people who maybe move to the city to chase a dream, get lied about and destroyed to feel copy in Sunday's paper, man, does that make me despise that reporter? A reporter who makes their living pulling down the dreams of young entertainers and tech developers and lying about other people. And if she did it honestly, I would be the first to defend her work, but Taylor is dishonest and read by millions of Americans who take her and her accusations seriously, and there is real harm in that. So what can we do to beat it? Well, the simplest answer is to support the very women Taylor wants to suppress. Support Arya Jacobs, the female immigrant entrepreneur. Support Jackie and Claudia Oshiri. Support Zaneb. Support Brandy. Support Mason Hartman. Steph Corey, female writer Christy. Support the women Taylor tries to destroy. And finally, Taylor, because I know you're watching this video, I'm on a rooftop in the West Village, so life has been pretty good, but before Taylor responds, let me remind her who has the power and the privilege. I grew up in the Midwest and worked at McDonald's. She grew up in ultra-wealthy Greenwich, Connecticut, went to a fancy Swiss boarding school, and flouts around LA with the full backing of the New York Times while lying about women and other reporters. I am not the patriarchy. You are [Music] is my hero, and uh, you guys should all go show him some love and check out uh, the rest of his video, which is so epic. He did so much research for that story, because if you get something like that wrong—this is when Taylor was working at the New York Times—like they will come after you uh, and and she has all these friends in in the media world. I mean, Cat Ten Barge who was at Business Insider and uh, wrote that exposing story on David Dobrik, and now she's at like I think NBC or something like that, but anyway, Taylor had a lot of people in her corner, and I think finally those people are starting to uh, distance themselves from her because she just can't seem to tell the truth, and it's just not a good look. Uh, my lawsuit against her is still ongoing. We are waiting for the judge to uh, say whether it's going to move forward to the next phase where we get discovery and we get to depose her and other people. And uh, the reason why I want people to like know about this is just so that they can see that if we want to uh, if they were happy about the Johnny Depp verdict—of course, Johnny Depp is a huge celebrity—but if this could happen to you, what happened to Johnny Depp, and if it's so difficult to file a defamation lawsuit, what's best is to make sure that these people don't do this anymore so that no more lawsuits, lawsuits are filed and so that no more careers are destroyed. So I will uh, I guess leave you guys with that. I don't know, I really just appreciate the people that are in here uh, this was my first live stream uh, if you go through my channel, I, I was making videos with a camcorder when I was nine years old. My dream was to basically be a YouTuber before YouTube was a thing, but I had—I was in college and uh, I was financially cut off from my parents and I had to get a job and I couldn't just stream all day long, and even back then you couldn't make money streaming. So uh, after you know, once I started my company, I wanted to help young people with the knowledge I had, and I wanted to be a champion for them, and like Taylor took that away from me, and I don't know how many other female entrepreneurs she's going to attack um, in the future, and it just, it needs to be stopped.

Oh, this is one the last thing I wanted to say uh, so I talked a little bit about how Taylor Lorenz sort of seems to like to be the victim, and once I filed the lawsuit against her, I went on Tucker Carlson, but let me explain—to talk about the lawsuit that I just filed—why did I go on Tucker Carlson? Well, he has a huge audience, right? Millions of people watch his show, but I didn't have many options, either. Taylor is repped by UTA, so UTA also represents Don Lemon, Anderson Cooper, The Young Turks, Robin Roberts, people that are in 2020 Good Morning America. Okay, who's gonna talk about me, right? They're not gonna talk crap about their own talent agency that pays them, that makes them a lot of money, right? Other companies like Business Insider, The Atlantic, The Daily Beast, they all employed Taylor, and they have journalists there who look up to Taylor, so they're not going to write my story. They're not going to write my side of the story. I even reached out to Latino magazines or Latino news outlets uh, Univision, Televisa. They didn't want to go up against the New York Times. This New York Times is super, super powerful journalists. They didn't want to go up again—they didn't want to talk about this either. You know why? Because if you're, if you are writing a book, guess where you want your book to land. You want to land on the New York Times bestsellers list, so you probably don't want to start beef with the New York Times. So you don't want to start beef with the New York Times. You don't want to start beef with UTA, who, by the way, has access to major celebrities. So if you're a journalist, why would you want to hurt your relationship with UTA, and you don't want to hurt your relationship with Taylor Lorenz because Taylor Lorenz will come for you. This is a year ago, right? So uh, Tucker Carlson wants me on his show. I'm gonna go on it. UTA's United Talent Agency, the agency that represented Taylor Lorenz that I think had a—it will find out—but seems like they had a conflict of interest with uh, Taylor uh, but this is what's so interesting. So before I file the lawsuit, Taylor Lorenz uh, is criticized on Tucker Carlson's show for being uh, just a whiny elite brat. I think fairly, right? You don't have to agree with everything Tucker Carlson says or anything he says, but I could agree with this. This is in March that he runs this um, story about Taylor. See if I can find it. Um, I don't think I'm gonna—I don't think it's on um, shoot, I don't think it is on um, I don't think it's on YouTube, but maybe I can show it to you guys on here. Okay, um, let me just show you the one I went on. So first uh, Tucker Carlson criticizes Taylor Lorenz on his show in March of 2021. I don't file the lawsuit against Taylor Lorenz until I think it was November of 2021. I don't go on Tucker Carlson uh, for a few months. So anyway, okay, yeah, so eight months ago I went on Tucker Carlson. So just—I'll just show you guys like a clip of this. Make you happier selling your car at EchoPark Automotive. Hi, we're Offerpad, and we want to buy your home. Just go to Offerpad.com and their basic information. Well, Taylor Lorenz works at the New York Times defending the interest of the ruling class by force. She defames people. One person is fighting back, however. Her name is Ariadna Jacob. She's recently filed a six-million-dollar defamation suit against Taylor Lorenz. Ariadna Jacob is an entrepreneur and influencer marketing expert, founder of Influences.com. She joins us to explain her lawsuit. Thanks so much for joining us tonight. We appreciate it. So Taylor Lorenz stalks the landscape, hurting people, and if you say something about it, she claims you're attacking her because she's got all kinds of neuroses or whatever. You're the aggressor. You're the only person I've seen fight back. Tell us why you're doing this and what your claim against her is. Thanks, Tucker. Uh, well, to give you some background, I dedicated my career to the influencer marketing industry for almost 20 years before influencer was even a term, and my company, Influences.com, was disrupting the entertainment space as we discovered and developed some of the biggest internet stars in the world, including Charlie D'Amelio and Addison Rae, and it was devastating when Taylor Lorenz came along with the megaphone of the New York Times and decided to write a scathing article full of lies about us, and she had to know it was lies because we answered all her questions factually before she published the story. I lost my business, my personal reputation, and my income. In Spanish, we say legends there's laws but no justice, and in this case, Tucker, I really pray for justice because Taylor Lorenz has a pattern of lying and destroying innocent people and manipulating young people, and she needs to be held accountable. I came to this country legally from Mexico when I was a little girl, and my father died, and it was my dream to build a company, and for a privileged bully like Taylor Lorenz to take it away from somebody like me is just wrong. Yeah, but very common. You, you know her MO though. Even using her name in public will elicit some self-pitying stream on Twitter about how you're committing violence against her and endangering her. She can totally crush your life, for the lives of kids, which she has done, but you're not allowed to fight back, are you? Are you ready for the, the further attacks on you? I, I was thrown off by that question, but I am, I am ready, but I, I honestly, I'm here because I'm telling the truth, and and I don't care what attacks come from her. In fact, Taylor Lorenz had a conflict of interest when uh, she came after me. She had a financial partnership with uh, the Hollywood giants, United Talent Agency, and UTA were also my direct business rivals. Um, Taylor wrote a glowing article about UTA in the New York Times without disclosing that they represented her, and soon after it was announced that UTA got Taylor Lorenz a book deal. It's no surprise that when Taylor's article left me blacklisted and penniless, that many of my clients ended up at UTA, and there's no recourse for someone like me, a non-celebrity, to get the truth out there. In fact, many primetime news anchors are represented also by UTA um, and so—but that's not all. Eight months after uh, her defamatory article, she continued to attack me when she heard that I was raising capital for a new venture. She went behind the scenes calling prominent people in the media, ranting that I'm a literal abuser who doesn't deserve positive press, I guess to [ __ ] my career and silence me forever. And this is an abusive power uh, the New York Times, even after I filed a lawsuit against them, which isn't easy by the way, they continue to stand behind Taylor's disgusting and sinister behavior. How does Taylor Lorenz still have a job? Because she's intimidated people into

Silence. She's the bully, but she's calling you an abuser. I hope you end this. I, I really do.

Ariadne Jacob. Thank you. Thank you so much. All of us who've watched this with jaws open—how is this woman terrorizing the country and nobody has the stones to fight back? So thanks.

Hey Sean Hannity here. Hey, click here to subscribe. A lot of people don't like Fox News. A lot of people don't like Tucker Carlson, but I'm very grateful they gave me an opportunity to speak out. And you know, he didn't interrupt me; he let me speak. And you know why? Did I include that I'm a Mexican immigrant? Because I'm tired of the uh, hypocrisy, right? Taylor's MO is to say, "Oh, I'm being attacked by white men." Well, I'm calling you out, Taylor, and I'm a Mexican, I'm an immigrant, and I'm a woman. What is your excuse now, right?

I was petrified doing that interview live. Um, I'm not—I, I wasn't a public figure when she wrote the article about me. I was behind the scenes, and all of this has forced me to come out and speak out because this is not about left and right, Republicans or Democrats; this is about right and wrong, and we need to call that out.

Um, I want to show you guys, just before I log off, uh, so I did that interview eight months ago, but even before that was when initially, uh, Tucker Carlson, uh, Tucker Carlson, uh, criticized her. And after Tucker Carlson criticized her, uh, she essentially—that was what spawned, uh, her saying that, you know, the left-wing media uh, attacks her and that, you know, Tucker Carlson and uh, Glenn Greenwald are like the biggest bullies ever, and they cause people to uh, give them death threats and all that stuff. So I'm gonna try to play for you guys uh, this video of, of when uh, Tucker criticized her in March. Let's see. Tucker, uh, just because there's, there's a reason I'm showing you guys this, and then I promise I'm done, but it's, it's really funny; it's worth, it's worth the um, wait. Here: Tucker Carlson, Taylor Lorenz, March 2021. Tucker. Okay, so check this out. Uh, share. Okay, check this out. Okay, March. Tucker Carlson keeps attacking a New York Times reporter—that's in the Washington Post, New York Post. Tucker Carlson escalates battle with New York Times. Tucker Carlson, The Guardian. Tucker Carlson's targeting of Taylor runs follows a pattern of—what is this going to say—follows a pattern of berating female journalists. Uh, Variety: Tucker Carlson attacks Taylor Lorenz; New York Times defends reporter Taylor Lorenz from Tucker Carlson's cruel attack. You guys get what I'm getting at? These are all her buddies, right? Variety. All the people that probably would never have me on to tell my story. Deadline: New York Times calls out Tucker Carlson for calculating cruel segment attacking reporter. Now this isn't about the, the uh, report you guys just watched with me on it. I'm going to try to find that one so I can show you guys the wrap. New York Times lashes out at Tucker Carlson. Okay, USA Today: Tucker girls in New York Times tussle over harassment. All right, do you guys want to see what the harassment was? I'm gonna try to find this video for you guys. I hope you guys see the irony here. Um, [Music] Sorry, let's see here. Uh, I just want to show it to you guys because I don't think it was like a really very mean attack, but you can see for yourself here. Okay, here we go. And thank you guys for hanging out with me here. I appreciate it. Uh, it's a bit cathartic too—is that the word?—where you just feel like people are like, you're being heard. It's been a very stressful couple of years. You know why? Also, I'll tell you this while this is downloading, is because I gave up like all of my 20s to build this company. I could have been focused on, you know, building a relationship, having kids. So you wake up and you're in your mid-30s and everything you ever worked for is over, and you got to start all the way over. It was like, what was that? What was that for? Like, why did I give up everything just so that I could not have anything to show for it? It's like, it's like you have like an existential crisis. Um, okay, I'm gonna share this video file that I just downloaded. All right, so, um, okay, here we go. So this is the um, video that Taylor said she's being harassed. [Music] Oh shoot, it's not gonna work. Okay, I'll just show it to you guys on my phone, and I'm sorry this is kind of ghetto, but we're just gonna—this is my first stream ever, so uh, here we go. Or maybe it will actually do it if I just share a screen, if I pull this up. Okay, share screen, uh, window, QuickTime player. Now, all right, I'm just going to show you guys on here. Okay, uh, check this out, just so I can conclude my story and you guys can see if how badly—well, this isn't even the final bit. Okay, here we go. Lorenz, for example, writes for the New York Times. She's at the very top of journalism's repulsive little food chain. Lorenzo is far younger than prominent New York Times reporters used to be. She's also much less talented. You'd think Taylor Lorenz would be grateful for the remarkable good luck that she's had, but no, she's not. Just this morning she tweeted this quote: "For International Women's Day, please consider supporting women enduring online harassment." It's not an exaggeration to say that the harassment and smear campaign I've had to endure over the past year has destroyed my life. Destroyed her life, really. By most people's standards, Taylor Lorenz would seem to have a pretty good life—one of the best lives in the country, in fact. Lots of people are suffering right now, but no one's suffering quite as much as Taylor Lorenz is suffering. People have criticized her opinions on the internet, and it destroyed her life. Let's pause on this International Women's Day and recognize that—you thought female wingers had it bad? You haven't talked to Taylor Lorenz. So he's essentially calling her out for whining on International Women's Day about how people should feel sorry for her because her life has been destroyed by the tweets. So then all these publications run to her side of the story: How dare you, Tucker Carlson, criticize Taylor Lorenz? Okay, this is the final thing of the story. So you guys remember my episode was in Mark—or sorry, was in uh, eight months ago; it was not in March. Okay, uh, so in—so like two days after the story about me, uh, sorry, the two days after I went on Tucker Carlson, she posts on her Instagram story, and I'm not gonna be able to like invite you; it's not going to share either. Um, well, I can try, but basically she—I want you guys to see what she posted. Uh, here we go. She posts on her Instagram story, uh, I don't know, it's gonna show it. Okay, here we go. Um, share. Okay. She posts on her Instagram story and shows a screenshot of a bunch of DMs sent to her. Okay, I'm not gonna—it's like—I'm gonna figure out how to show you, but this is—so she essentially like posts this on her Instagram story and she says, "Never had so many men in my message requests." And when you like look into, you know, the message that she's screenshotting, you can see basically a bunch of criticism. Uh, you see Alan Collins: They say, "You're a total [ __ ] You ain't no journalist. What an idiot. You're a clown. You're a left-wing liberal. You are a [ __ ] idiot." Having fun now. These are all men tweets in this, in this part of, of the screenshot that she posted the day after I went on Tucker Carlson. Essentially, she's saying, "Ari went on Tucker Carlson, and now I'm getting attacked by men." Um, "You are a predator of chil—of children. You should be ashamed of yourself." She writes all the—she, she posts all this stuff so people will feel bad for her on her Instagram. "Never had so many men in my message requests." But then I screenshot it, and she's sharing messages from March 10th when Tucker first talked about her. She, she's posting these messages the day after I go on Tucker, and she's trying to essentially insinuate that because I went on Tucker to talk about my story, she's getting hate mail. But that hate mail came months before you got caught, woman. Like, these are not from when I went on Tucker. In fact, when I went on Tucker, you have women that are messaging her saying, "You're a horrible person." And by the way, mean tweets—I would have taken mean tweets all day long over having my entire career destroyed. People saying that I leak nude images of young people. I didn't know how I was gonna pay my rent. I didn't know how I was going to pay my car payment. I didn't know how I was going to feed my dog at one point. Like, it sounds like I'm being a victim and I'm exaggerating, but I'm not, because I was bootstrapped. I didn't have an investor, right? I was counting on the money that was coming in from these deals that I did that I worked on for months. I was the person—like, see, we've talked about that—came out to LA just with whatever I had, which was my knowledge and experience and drive. So this has been a long live stream. I'm really happy you guys tuned in. I just wanted to talk about a little bit about what happened to me. Um, maybe people are going to start coming out of the woodworks, and I certainly hope they do, and I hope they have the courage to speak out against this type of journalism that—like, it does destroy lives. And you have to—like, anybody that watches the Johnny Depp trial could see like what it does to a person when you only have one name. You really do. People were like, "Why don't you just change your name?" Can you imagine? But why would I have to change my name? I didn't do anything wrong. Why do I have to change my name? Maybe Taylor Lorenz should go find a different line of work. That's what I think. I would love your guys's support. Um, follow my Instagram, all my Twitter, follow the Law Tubers that cover these cases, and support the, the women and the journalists that are willing to speak out. Support Boast Wiki, and uh, maybe I'll come back and go over the rest of his uh, video sort of segment by segment. Thank you guys so much. Bye.