The Women of the Far Right: Social Media Influencers and Online Radicalization

Here are some highlights from this 2023 book by sociologist Eviane Leidig:

* In May 2019, then twenty-three-year-old Canadian Lauren Southern posted on her website, laurensouthern.net, a farewell message titled “A New Chapter.” In it, Lauren 1 stated that over the course of four years, she had made deep friendships and embarked on adventures around the world, listening to stories of hope and loss.
Unless you knew about Lauren Southern’s political activism, her farewell message revealed nothing about her political beliefs. Yet her departure from public life, despite having signaled a move away in the six months earlier, was a major loss of one of the alt – right’s main celebrities.
The rise and fall of Lauren Southern reflect the ephemeral nature of the alt – right movement. After all, the alt – right had no clear leader, structure, or even ideology. It existed almost entirely online, and its adherents were vulnerable to censorship, suspension, and shadow banning.

* The American and Canadian women who feature at the core of this book are Lauren Southern, Brittany Sellner (n é e Pettibone), Lana Lokteff, Rebecca Hargraves, Robyn Riley, Ayla Stewart, Lacey Lynn, and Lauren Chen… With the exception of Lauren Chen, who crosses the far right and conservative spectrum, these influencers are not involved with these conservative organizations and prefer to engage in political activism that is more explicitly ideologically extreme.

* These young, attractive women are taking to mainstream social media sites to recruit followers and build audiences for their cause. I call these women “influencers” because they serve as leading online personalities shaping and popularizing ideas within the far – right community. Compared to the dark web and fringe forums such as 4chan and 8kun (previously 8chan), which inspired the terrorist attacks in Christchurch, New Zealand, in 2019 and in Buffalo, New York, in 2022, forums where (mostly male) users hide behind anonymous avatars, these women prefer to spread their message on mainstream platforms such as YouTube, Instagram, and Twitter. Importantly, being an influencer isn’t just discourse oriented. It is encompassed within a broader influencer culture . The media scholar Crystal Abidin defines influencers as “everyday, ordinary Internet users who accumulate a relatively large following on blogs and social media through the textual and visual narration of their personal lives and lifestyles, engage with their following in ‘digital’ and ‘physical’ spaces, and monetize their following following by integrating ‘advertorials’ into their blog or social media posts and making appearances at events.” 3 The far – right women featured in this book are self – styled vloggers (video bloggers), activists, entrepreneurs, and authors. They discuss issues such as dating and relationships alongside free speech, the “invasion” of migrants in Europe, and culture wars on university campuses. They travel the world to film documentaries and go on speaking tours. In this book, I show that it was the female leaders of the alt – right who helped mainstream the ideas of what was previously a fringe phenomenon by tapping into the practices of influencer culture to reach wide audiences.

* what makes these women so appealing is how they present as relatable to viewers. They may be energetic, charming, and self – confident, but they are also remarkably down – to – earth and empathetic. These women discuss the troubles of finding love, desiring financial security, and making friends amid loneliness. They post photos of themselves traveling on vacations and at coffee breaks in caf é s. They showcase their lives and lifestyles.
I contend that perceptions of authenticity and accessibility serve as the most powerful tools of the modern far right.

* Media scholars note…that “the internet does not cause radicalization, but it helps spread extremist ideas, enables people interested in these ideas to form communities, and mainstreams conspiracy theories and distrust in institutions.”

* Parasocial relationships are one – sided relationships in which fans feel as if they intimately know and are close to a celebrity after prolonged exposure. But whereas parasocial interactions usually consist of fans developing illusions of intimacy with the celebrity, here in the case of far – right women influencers the fandom culture transforms into a community where influencers respond to fans, while fans, in turn, participate in helping to shape influencer content via comments and likes. [Scholars say] “Authenticity has become less of a static quality and more of a performative ecology and parasocial strategy with its own bona fide genre and self – presentation elements.”

* I was facing the same life obstacles at the same time as they were: all of us were young adult women seeking to find our voice and identity, to assert ourselves, to feel empowered and valued (paradoxically feminist goals for them). Although we had different pursuits, their stories of self – fulfillment and accomplishment were a common bond between us. Even as someone who can spot the signs of radicalization, I found it easy to become absorbed in these women’s world. And here lies the crux of the problem: these influencers are integral to normalizing the far right in the twenty – first century through their visible social media performances.

* “being part of” versus being “interested in” the alt – right is a slippery slope.

* Scholars define populism as fitting into two camps. The first camp advocates what the political scientist Cas Mudde calls a “thin ideology” of “the pure people” versus “the corrupt elite” and of politics representing the general will of the people. It is a thin ideology because it depends on a “thicker” ideology, such as nationalism, to function. 14 According to this definition, populism can manifest on both the political left and the political right.

* The journalist Seyward Darby describes Ayla Stewart as “a seeker”: “Throughout her life, Ayla had been in zealous pursuit of meaning; [the far right] was just her latest aspiration.” Lana Lokteff, in contrast, is an opportunist seduced by power and influence. “She is a stage manager as much as she is a performer. She dictates what her audiences see, and she doesn’t want anyone to peek behind the curtain,” 35 Darby noted when she tried to get access to Lana’s private life. Lana prefers to control the narrative, to play the game, rather than provide an unfiltered picture.

* The media scholar Theresa Senft coined the term microcelebrity in 2008 when she was researching “camgirls,” young women who broadcast their lives to the public on the internet… They fulfill four criteria to achieve this status: they “usually engage with positive self – branding strategies (as opposed to playing with notions of shame and scandal); manage a public visibility that is sustained and stable (as opposed to being briefly viral or transient); groom followers to consume their content aspirationally (as opposed to accumulating hate – watchers or audiences who tune in only with the desire to watch them fail or gawk at them); and can parlay their high internet visibility into an income that is lucrative enough for a full – time career.”

* the process for far – right women is gradual, sometimes taking years; the retelling of their “journey” can be convoluted, contradictory, and they can sometimes go so far as to “reshape stories, even memories, of their past” to fit their present activism. 29 “Whenever she told the story of her life,” writes the journalist Seyward Darby about Ayla Stewart, “Ayla described a gradual awakening — a realization that the media and America’s raging liberal culture had taught her to hate herself, her femininity, and her race.” 30 It is most likely that Ayla was framing her radicalization journey according to her current political beliefs as a way of situating and understanding her past self.

* Each embarked on a journey of self – improvement with a mindset of accepting personal responsibility. Along the way, they found confidence in voicing unpopular political opinions through watching the male YouTubers. They “have inspired me to say what I’m thinking and not be afraid of the repercussions,” Rebecca claimed in her first YouTube video in February 2016. “These things are the truth … to save Western society, which I see crumbling,” she added. 34 Their stories are ones of resilience as much as of a reawakening. And yet in sharing their journeys, they use far – right ideology to explain the reasons for their past unhappiness.

* Robyn, who now has tens of thousands of subscribers to her YouTube channel, related in a video titled “I Lost All My Friends in the Culture War” in September 2018 her painful experience of losing former university friendships. Misty – eyed, her voice shaking, she described feeling betrayed by the very people she once considered her second family: “My old friends who are still liberal can’t see what I’m doing on social media outside of the confines of their own perspective, which puts me in a category of someone who is propagating hate speech, someone who has been radicalized, someone who believes in conspiracy theories, theories, someone who probably has no credibility, someone who is being misled by unreliable sources, someone who has been manipulated by men in my life, someone who has probably internalized misogyny — I would imagine is something running through their heads.” With her head held high, Robyn renounced her old friends. “When strangers are more supportive of what I’m doing on here than old friends, then maybe it’s time to let go.” 36 No doubt it is easier to let go when you can frame your cause as worthy to tens of thousands of supportive strangers… By sharing her experience, Robyn hoped that others would find the strength to gain what she called “self – respect.” This “sense of moral worthiness,” as Kathleen Blee describes women radicalized in the far right, 37 gives purpose to these influencers.

* With “glow up,” an emphasis is placed on routines and lifestyle changes revolving around health. The process also centers on building self – confidence and discovering one’s preferences, values, and passions. The ultimate aim of a glow up is a rebranding of oneself — a perfect analogy for red pilling.

* A recurring theme across Robyn, Rebecca, and Lacey’s red pill stories is how these influencers create validation for their life choices. Framing the process as finding their “authentic” and “honest” selves distracts from the hateful ideology of the far right. Gaining a sense of “self – respect” and building confidence in one’s opinions are attractive to vulnerable young people, but for these influencers these gains come at the expense of dehumanization and “othering.” Their far – right propaganda is highly effective at turning personal grievances into a “worthy” cause. Women influencers are at the helm of manipulating susceptible viewers into believing that joining the far right will bring them happiness, which in turn will lead to the betterment of society overall.

* far – right women influencers have a high male viewership [because] they function as honeytraps for the male gaze.

* being part of a social movement creates powerful bonds of community, which is considered like a family.

* By far, the women themselves are the most crucial form of entrepreneurism as influencers. They capitalize on their looks and youth to construct themselves as the most visible women on the far – right frontlines. Building audiences on platforms such as YouTube and Instagram, which are visually oriented, is possible due to what the media scholar Alice Marwick describes as “Instafame”: “an online attention economy in which page views and clicks are synonymous with success and thus online status.” 49 The concept of the “attention economy” is key here. As the sociologist Zeynep Tufekci notes, “ Attention is a key resource for social movements” because the latter depend on it to frame their goals, convince the public of their causes, recruit, neutralize the opposition, create solidarity, and mobilize supporters. 50 If we think about the far right as a social movement, then these women influencers play an integral role in furthering its aims within the online attention economy.
Far – right women influencers solicit attention by curating a microcelebrity profile that strategically reveals personal information while also coming across as a source of inspiration for their followers. They maintain a delicate balance of accessibility, authenticity, and aspiration. “Microcelebrity is linked to the increasingly pervasive notion of ‘self – branding,’ a self – presentation strategy that requires viewing oneself as a consumer product and selling this image to others,” writes Marwick. 51 Building upon Rebecca Lewis’s research on reactionary – right YouTubers, these women influencers are “selling” the far right through their own “political self – branding,” in which “they live their politics as an aspirational brand.” 52 Whether that brand is achieved by selling merchandise featuring their catchphrases or simply by posting selfies of behind – the – scenes action, these seemingly banal activities serve a very important purpose: far – right propaganda.
These influencers thus practice a type of “relational labor,” which, the media scholar Nancy Baym writes, entails ongoing audience engagement over time to build social relationships. However, unlike sole emotional labor, relational labor usually involves connections tied to earning money.

* Dutch influencer Eva Vlaardingerbroek, a former politician who worked as a trainee for the far – right Forum for Democracy (FvD) party in the European Parliament in Brussels. She holds a master’s degree in philosophy of law and pursued a PhD in the Netherlands before dropping out to focus on politics full – time. Eva became a rising star among the Dutch far right for delivering a speech critical of feminism in 2019, but the next year she ended her membership in FvD following internal party divisions — not least complicated by her romantic relationship with its leader, Thierry Baudet, a few years earlier. At the time she exited FvD, she was dating Julien Rochedy, a French politician of the far – right National Rally party and later moved to Sweden to become the host of a YouTube program called Let’s Talk About It , run by the Sweden Democrats, a party with roots in neo – Nazism. 72 She returned to the Netherlands at the end of 2021 to take up a position at a law firm to fight government mandates such as mask wearing and vaccination against COVID – 19.
U.S. audiences may be familiar with Eva because she began regularly appearing as a guest commentator on Tucker Carlson’s show on Fox News , discussing the “skyrocketing crime epidemic” in Sweden, which she linked to mass immigration and demographic change.

* The media scholar Bharath Ganesh describes the “ungovernability” of online spaces where the far right is present. He characterizes this presence as “a swarm” with three central components: “its decentralized structure, its ability to quickly navigate and migrate across websites, and its use of coded language to flout law and regulation.”

* Lauren [Southern in 2022] further divulged the drama and conflict within the far – right political scene, including blackmail, threats, betrayal, and rumors. “We have a lot of cultlike dynamics of our own, where people can get excommunicated, where we don’t really look into things that deeply if the saints of our movement say it,” she critiqued. According to her description, the far – right milieu is engrossed in the spectacle of celebrity and fandom. She was now largely pessimistic about the world in which she rose to fame: “The fact [is] that so much of this 2016 alternative – right, dissident – right movement was so coded in selfishness, narcissism, cult of personality, and none of it was about helping people. It was about how well latching onto this person’s struggle [will] potentially boost my career.”
For viewers who didn’t know what people she was referring to, she stated explicitly, “I’m talking about the people at the top.” The leading figures Lauren criticized in the video are Ezra Levant, Milo Yiannopoulos, Tommy Robinson, Faith Goldy, and Paul Joseph Watson. She exposed these individuals’ atrocious behavior either toward her personally or toward others who were victimized. “A lot of money, influence, power, and faith people are putting in people is getting squandered away. Squandered away due to ego.… It’s really important to highlight just how messed up the culture was in this political movement,” Lauren explained.

* “It can be a profitable decision to go far to the right, where the audience is very accepting and gets excited about new personalities that come on the scene, especially young women,” observes the journalist Jared Holt. “But because this audience is so toxic and hateful, going to that audience is sort of like your last stop on a media career.”

* “It was hard to imagine Lana [Lokteff], who’d sought a spotlight for so much of her life, gladly disappearing into her home should a white ethno – state ever exist. I wondered if the pursuit of white nationalism — the struggle, as believers would call it — was the endgame for people like Lana.” 18 As the most prominent women in the movement, these far – right influencers are attracted to the fame and status they receive as figureheads. Do they truly advocate for what they’re saying, or do they just understand that using certain catchphrases will garner more attention and views? There is an underlying tension between authenticity and propaganda in these influencers’ self – presentation online.

* “In the end, the needs and ambitions of women activists never fit into right-wing extremist parties and organizations dominated by men.”

Posted in Alt Right | Comments Off on The Women of the Far Right: Social Media Influencers and Online Radicalization

My Favorite Songs

That’s the beginning number of my Youtube music playlist.

Posted in Music | Comments Off on My Favorite Songs

My Favorite Movies

* A Man For All Seasons (1966)
* Chariots of Fire (1981)
* Cinema Paradiso (1988)
* A Perfect World (1993)
* Legends of the Fall (1994)
* Big Fish (2003)

Posted in Hollywood | Comments Off on My Favorite Movies

Decoding Journalism, Decoding Winners From Losers (1-17-24)


01:00 New Yorker: How Ten Middle East Conflicts Are Converging Into One Big War, https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/how-ten-middle-east-conflicts-are-converging-into-one-big-war
10:00 Democrats Are Preparing For Donald Trump To Be President Again, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S-KxZ8gbp2Y
17:00 Amy Wax talks with Richard Hanania, https://www.richardhanania.com/p/amy-wax-versus-the-midwit-gynocrats
19:00 Extremely Online: The Untold Story of Fame, Influence, and Power on the Internet, https://lukeford.net/blog/?p=154056
22:00 All the News That’s Fit to Click: How Metrics Are Transforming the Work of Journalists, https://lukeford.net/blog/?p=154027
1:21:00 Assume Nothing: Encounters with Assassins, Spies, Presidents, and Would-Be Masters of the Universe, https://lukeford.net/blog/?p=153998
1:33:00 What Distinguishes Winners From Losers?, https://lukeford.net/blog/?p=153969
1:40:00 How do you fight anti-semitism?
1:50:00 A Republican Pollster on Trump’s Undimmed Appeal, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UscAXKmj__k

Posted in America | Comments Off on Decoding Journalism, Decoding Winners From Losers (1-17-24)

Extremely Online: The Untold Story of Fame, Influence, and Power on the Internet

The world is a big oozing mess, but to create meaning and order in our lives, we develop and sanctify boundaries between the clean and the dirty, the heroic and the cowardly.

Here are some excerpts from this 2023 book by Washington Post journalist Taylor Lorenz:

* In April 2007, he confronted the masterminds behind Socialite Rank. It wasn’t a group of top – tier socialites teaming up behind the scenes; in fact, it wasn’t anyone most people knew at all. The all – powerful website was run by a completely random pair of Russian émigrés named Valentine Uhovski and Olga Rei. The duo was not remotely born into high society and they had essentially created the blog as a social experiment.
New York Magazine ran a cover story on the shocking reveal. Elite society was astonished. They realized they had been brought to their knees, to tears, to a frenzy — by two people they wouldn’t have given the time of day. The outsiders had upended the ultimate insiders, and it had cost less than a trip to the hair salon.

* Most legacy publications didn’t see blogs as a threat at first. Bloggers looked like curious eccentrics, a band of second – rate scribblers with too much time on their hands. The old guard scoffed that bloggers’ writing wasn’t up to the standards of the New York Times or Vanity Fair. They doubted that bloggers could ever break consequential stories without the access and talent monopolized by legacy media.
Readers, on the other hand, enjoyed the lack of polish. The media environment of the 1990s was centralized and corporate after waves of mergers left only a handful of conglomerates whose content was middle – of – the – road, burnished, and safe. In 2002, Wired declared “The Blogging Revolution,” a paradigm shift in how people distributed and received information: “Readers increasingly doubt the authority of the Washington Post or National Review, despite their grand – sounding titles and large staffs. They know that behind the curtain are fallible writers and editors who are no more inherently trustworthy than a lone blogger who has earned a reader’s respect.” Blogs offered readers everything that legacy media couldn’t, revealing what writers really thought. What’s more, blogs also enabled real – time interaction between writers and readers through comments sections attached to posts. Unlike message boards, blog posts primed the discussion with original, substantial content that was ripe for debate.

* By 2009, fashion bloggers like Bryan Boy and Garance Dore made their foray into high – brow fashion circles. Bloggers were suddenly sitting in coveted front – row seats during New York Fashion Week, then at Dolce & Gabbana’s show at Milan Fashion Week, in a shocking upset that fashion insiders dubbed “blogger gate.” “Bloggers have ascended from the nosebleed seats to the front row with such alacrity that a long – held social code among editors, one that prizes position and experience above outward displays of ambition or enjoyment, has practically been obliterated,” wrote Eric Wilson of the New York Times.

I want to share with you an Andrew Gelman (Columbia University Statistics professor) blog post from November 2011:

Journalist Jonathan Rauch writes:

This is the blogosphere. I’m not getting paid to be here. I’m here to get incredibly famous (in my case, even more incredibly famous) so that I can get paid somewhere else. . . .

The average quality of newspapers and (published) novels is far, far better than the average quality of blog posts (and–ugh!–comments). This is because people pay for newspapers and novels. What distinguishes newspapers and novels is how much does not get published in them, because people won’t pay for it. Payment is a filter, and a pretty good one. Imperfect, of course. But pointing out the defects of the old model is merely changing the subject if the new model is worse…

Yes, the new model is bringing a lot of new content into being. But most of it is bad. And it’s displacing a lot of better content, by destroying the business model for quality. Even in the information economy, there’s no free lunch…

Yes, there’s good stuff out there. But when you find a medium in which 99 percent, or whatever, of what’s produced is bad, there is a problem with the medium…

I believe there are inherent problems with the blogosphere as a medium. Lack of a payment model militates against professionalism and rewards noisiness…

In terms of the environment and the incentives it creates, the blogosphere, I submit, is the single worst medium for sustained, and therefore grown-up, reading and writing and argumentation ever invented.

Andrew Gelman responds:

I wonder if his problem is that he’s aiming for too big an audience. We have something like 5000 subscribers here. Maybe if Rauch were willing to settle for an audience of 5000 rather than millions, he could be mild, moderate, think things through, and get it right. To be all these things and have a huge audience? I think that takes a huge amount of luck. It happened with John Updike, and Francis Fukayama, and Tyler Cowen, and . . . not so many others. But if you’re willing to accept a niche audience, you can be as serious as you want…

Rauch writes that journalists like himself are “the kind of people who punched their tickets on newspaper police beats where they learned quaint notions of fairness and accuracy and keeping one’s opinions out of it and all that.” Given that Rauch is currently posting nothing but opinions and has stated that he will do no reporting on his blog, and given that I haven’t seen any police reporting from him lately, I think it’s safe to say that he doesn’t actually view fairness, accuracy, and the traditions of the police beat as valuable in themselves but rather as some sort of hazing that you had to do in the old days before you could get to the fun stage of opinionating. So I can feel his frustration that bloggers today feel free to express their opinions in public–just like Rauch, but they never had to do all that police-beat stuff first. Rauch had to eat his spinach but these dudes get to skip right to the dessert. Talk about violating “quaint notions of fairness”!

Life is like that. Just when you finally become an expert on something, your expertise becomes obsolete. You spend a couple decades getting good grades and becoming really good at taking tests, then suddenly you never need to take a test again. You master the skills of diaper-changing, then all of a sudden your kids are walking around wearing real underwear and you have no place to apply your talents. You’re Derek Jeter and you get to be really really good at hitting, throwing, and catching, and then before you know it, it’s time to retire. And so on.

Rauch is in a difficult position, I think, in that his particular journalistic niche includes a lot that people are happy do for free. His most recent book, “Gay Marriage: Why It Is Good for Gays, Good for Straights, and Good for America,” is the sort of thing you might very well see on a blog.

Academic publishing

Rauch writes that blogging, and the internet in general, is “displacing a lot of better content, by destroying the business model for quality.” What really struck me about this remark was how different things are in academic publishing. Nobody pays us to write journal articles: we do it for free and we always have. We get paid to teach and to do research. Publications can indirectly make us money–if I publish an important article, it can help me get a research grant–but no part of this system requires the readers of my work to pay for it. If every journal were to become free and online overnight, everything could proceed just as before. The argument that paid writing is better than free writing just doesn’t apply in my world.

Journalists view their profession as a holy calling (they have their own hero system). As noted in the 2021 book, All the News That’s Fit to Click: How Metrics Are Transforming the Work of Journalists:

* …journalism is an anomalous case of cultural production in that its practitioners operate according to a set of normative, rather than artistic, commitments. As media scholar Mike Ananny puts it, “Unlike artistic fields of cultural production, the press—ideally and principally—pursues its autonomy in order to advance public interests.”

* A range of established journalistic norms and practices, such as refusing gifts, denying sources quote approval, and establishing a “wall” between the editorial and business sides of news organizations, stem from efforts to maintain autonomy.

* As sociologist Herbert Gans wrote in an oft-quoted passage from his classic newsroom ethnography Deciding What’s News, journalists “had little knowledge about the actual audience and rejected feedback from it. Although they had a vague image of the audience, they paid little attention to it; instead, they filmed and wrote for their superiors and for themselves, assuming . . . that what interested them would interest the audience.”

What makes a piece of writing “journalism” and hence protected by the First Amendment is somewhat subjective. Journalists, like other professionals, guard their status zealously. They are in an awkward position because their job is essentially making judgments that are not subject to objective criteria. They are often quick to dismiss many bloggers, for example, for the cardinal sin of not doing journalism.

In his work-in-progress, Conservative Claims of Cultural Oppression, philosopher Rony Guldmann writes:

* Questioning whether the post-war professionalization of education, business, and journalism was genuinely necessary, Gelernter observes that universities had an obvious interest in “convert[ing] as much of the landscape as possible into fenced-off, neatly tended, carefully patrolled academic preserves,” so that the “smooth, manicured green lawn of science” might replace the “wild sweet meadow-grass of common sense.” Justified or not, this trend toward professionalization doesn’t strike liberals as essentially political… Professionalization is just another expression of liberalism’s ordering impulses and monkish virtues, the artificial devaluation of knowledge borne of encounters with anti-structure—the “wild sweet meadow-grass of common sense”—and an exaggerated respect for knowledge that, shielded from that anti-structure, can be “scored by those with authority.” To maintain their dominion, liberals must discredit knowledge that originates in “embodied feeling” and “nonexplicit engagement with the world” as mindless habit and reflex, lax and disorganized folkways to be uprooted.

* As a dissident culture, conservatism is by definition in a position of weakness. The elites of the dissident culture “cannot begin to match, in numbers or influence, those who occupy the commanding heights of the dominant culture, such as professors, journalists, television and movie producers, and various cultural entrepreneurs.” Even religion has fallen under the dominant culture’s sway. One might have expected it to be at the forefront of the resistance. But “priding themselves on being cosmopolitan and sophisticated, undogmatic and uncensorious,” the mainline churches have offered “little or no resistance” to the “prevailing culture.”

* The Ford Foundation, the New York Times, and Hollywood are just the latest iterations of the “unnatural” life of court society, of the unhealthy self-consciousness and other-directedness that stands in sharp contrast to those who pour their hearts out singing the Star-Spangled Banner, surrendering to the excitement of their hearts “unhindered by ‘cold reason.’”

* The now overthrown WASP establishment “saw itself as the nation’s high end, the top of a vertical spectrum.” But the new ruling class of “PORGIs”—post-religious, globalist intellectuals—see themselves “as separated by a cultural Grand Canyon from the nation at large, with Harvard and the New York Times and the Boston Symphony and science and technology and iPhones and organic truffled latte on their side—and guns, churches and NASCAR on the other.”

Laura Ingraham notes: “If you’re an elitist who’s spent his entire career working for the Ford Foundation, the New York Times, or a Hollywood studio, concepts like valor, bravery, and sacrifice are probably alien to you. You don’t take them seriously, you don’t know anyone who does, and you naturally think that anyone who does profess to live by them must be mentally defective, even evil.”

Does anyone fret anymore that blogs are killing the MSM?

Taylor Lorenz writes in his her new book:

* As blogs boomed, traditional media felt the hurt, especially local and regional newspapers. Subscription rates everywhere plummeted now that the internet gave readers access to a wealth of free information, including articles from the very newspapers they no longer purchased in physical form. The industry’s century – old business model crumbled, forcing newsrooms around the country to hemorrhage staff and shut down. As they did, gatekeepers went from dismissive to hostile. In testimony before Congress, David Simon, a former reporter for the Baltimore Sun and creator of The Wire , warned that the blogosphere was causing a media death spiral: “Readers acquire news from the aggregators and abandon its point of origin — namely the newspapers themselves. In short, the parasite is slowly killing the host.”
By the end of the 2000s, it looked more like the parasite and host had merged. As top blogs expanded their headcount by hiring professional reporters, designers, and support staff, they came to resemble traditional media companies, complete with newsrooms and sales departments. Many legacy publishers realized that their best strategy was simply to invite bloggers in. Major publications, from the New York Times and the Atlantic to Glamour and Elle, hired the top crop of bloggers to fill out their ranks of writers and reporters. These same organizations also started major blogs of their own, or bought successful sites outright. By 2009, nearly half of the fifty most – trafficked blogs were owned by corporate media behemoths like CNN, ABC, and AOL. Yet while star bloggers in tech and politics received top billing, another class of bloggers was quietly ushering in a larger shift.
In the end, the defining figure of the blog era wasn’t the nerd or the wonk. It was the mommy blogger.

* JULIA ALLISON WAS A JUNIOR at Georgetown University in 2002 when she started a dating column in the school paper called “Sex on the Hilltop.” Sex and the City was one of the hottest shows on television. As her column became a campus sensation, Allison felt like Georgetown’s own Carrie Bradshaw. The university’s location in Washington, D.C., brought national coverage to her column. (When she wrote about dating an anonymous young congressman, the Washington Post was swift to reveal his identity.) Her peers enjoyed her candid style, but within months, her headlines began to enrage Georgetown alumni and some students. “I didn’t write about sex very much,” Allison told me, “but all the conservatives at Georgetown were so upset. I became this lightning rod.” Still, Allison soon landed bylines at national outlets like Cosmopolitan and Seventeen. Film producer Aaron Spelling even optioned her life rights when she was twenty – one.

* [Julia] Allison got an idea when she saw Tom Wolfe on a book tour that year. Everywhere he went, he appeared in his iconic white suit. “He’s a brand,” she realized. “I’ve got to be known and become a name.” Wolfe built his brand in another era, but he wasn’t the only archetype for Allison to follow.

* Nearly every article documenting Allison’s rise contained a disturbing level of misogynistic language and tropes. Tech journalists, who were overwhelmingly men, implied that Allison was promiscuous. They used highly gendered language to slut – shame her and question her credibility as an expert on media and technology. She was accused of trying to sleep with the powerful men in tech whom she interviewed or partnered with. Fast Company ran a piece titled “Sometimes Breasts Aren’t Enough, Julia Allison.” Wired and the rest of the tech press was similarly hostile.

* By 2012, she decided that she couldn’t handle any more online assaults. “It had been about ten years of my life, and I was exhausted,” she said. “I felt beaten down, I felt completely disillusioned, and I wanted a different reality. More than anything, I wanted to be off the internet. I was like, ‘I don’t know how I’ll make money, but I can’t make it this way anymore.’ And I never looked back.”
She set out to erase herself from the internet. She spent hours deleting over 14,000 tweets, one by one. She removed Tumblr posts, made other accounts private, and restricted access to her viral YouTube and Vimeo videos.
Every so often she dipped her toe back in, and each time she regretted it.

* Allison lives a quieter life now. She resides in Cambridge, Massachusetts, with her fiancé and was recently accepted into a master’s program at Harvard’s Kennedy School in leadership and public policy.

* In 2013, creators were happy to wander into malls with no security and get mobbed by fans. But that was a naïve dream years later. The turning point came in June 2016, when the YouTuber and music artist Christina Grimmie was murdered by a fan in Orlando. Grimmie had posted on social media asking people to attend a concert she was giving and, after her performance, she stuck around to meet her followers. As she opened her arms to give a twenty – seven – year – old fan a hug, he fatally shot her once in the head and twice in the chest. Police later revealed that the fan had stalked her for years online and fantasized about the two of them being together. When he realized he couldn’t have her, he chose to murder her.

* Before YouTube’s algorithm change, users would hop frequently between short, catchy videos. Afterwards, creators noticed that the more they let fans into their daily lives, the deeper the engagement they’d generate on their videos. The algorithm was encouraging a return to the Lonelygirl15 era.

Posted in Journalism | Comments Off on Extremely Online: The Untold Story of Fame, Influence, and Power on the Internet