Latest news with #Raichik
NZ Herald
24-04-2025
- Politics
- NZ Herald
Anti-trans posts pass muster under Meta's new hate-speech rules
Both posts came to the Oversight Board's attention after being reshared by conservative activist Chaya Raichik, who operates several controversial social media accounts known as Libs of TikTok, according to four people familiar with the matter. Raichik's social media accounts have become a fixture in American politics, and she has amassed an audience of millions while routinely attacking the cultural acceptance of trans people. Libs of TikTok has been blamed for sparking threats at hospitals and encouraging restrictions on LGBTQ+ -related content in schools. Raichik said the allegations about hospitals are false. The Oversight Board's ruling is the first major test of Meta's latest efforts to rebrand itself for a MAGA-dominated Washington. Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg pledged in January to take the company back to its roots by 'restoring free expression' after years of what he said were too many restrictions on speech. That same month, Meta weakened its hate-speech rules, offering users greater freedom to call for gender-based restrictions in bathrooms, sports and specific schools, and to characterise gay people as mentally ill. The Oversight Board as a whole said the posts didn't violate Meta's new or old hate-speech rules because they did not directly attack people based on their gender identity. A minority on the board argued that the posts would have violated Meta's old hate-speech rules before the changes in January. The board on Wednesday also issued a broader critique of Meta's latest policy changes, including calling on the social media giant to improve how it enforces violations of its bullying and harassment rules. The Oversight Board planned to release the gender identity case ruling, among several others, next week but moved up the announcement to Wednesday after a Washington Post reporter requested comment this week on the pending ruling. Ayobami Olugbemiga, a spokesperson for the Oversight Board, said the group would offer a comment for this report by the end of Tuesday (local time) but did not. Meta spokesman Corey Chambliss said in a statement on Wednesday the company appreciates 'the work of the Oversight Board' and welcomes its decisions. Clegg didn't respond to a request for comment. Even before Wednesday's ruling, the board's judgment on the gender identity cases had become a lightning rod among social media policy watchers, attracting scores of comments about how the group should rule, including from LGTBQ+ advocacy groups and conservative critics. The ruling could also affect how other internet platforms draw the line about what is considered acceptable speech amid a fierce global debate about the rights of trans people. 'This ruling tells LGBTQ people all we need to know about Meta's attitude towards its LGBTQ users - anti-LGBTQ hate, and especially anti-trans hate is welcome on Meta's platforms,' Sarah Kate Ellis, CEO of the LGBTQ+ activist group GLAAD, said in a statement. 'This is not 'free speech,' this is harassment that dehumanises a vulnerable group of people.' Critics argue that leaving the content up could open the door to more harmful rhetoric about trans people, at a time when the LGBTQ+ community is facing rising harassment and legislative efforts to limit trans people's ability to use bathrooms or compete in sports competitions in accordance with their gender identity. Meanwhile, conservative free-speech advocates argue that people should be allowed to criticise the rights of trans people - a position that polls show is gaining popularity among the general public in the United States. 'This isn't hate speech,' said Beth Parlato, a senior legal adviser for Independent Women's Law Centre, a conservative group that advocates for restrictions on trans people's participation in sports and their presence in bathrooms and locker rooms that match their gender identity. 'More than half of the country believes there are two sexes - male and female - and we should not be quieted or censored from discussing any issues that involve transgenders,' she added. The Oversight Board is undergoing its own reinvention, five years after it launched as an experimental way for Meta to offload contentious content-moderation decisions to an independent party. Critics of the board, both inside and outside the company, have alleged that it has moved too slowly to issue decisions, failed to substantially change the company's approach to moderation, and operated at too hefty a price tag. Some have also characterised the Oversight Board as too liberal, applying pressure that incentivised the group to take up the gender identity cases in the first place, one of the people said. The 21-member Oversight Board, which is funded by the tech company but operates independently, includes a global roster of well-known public figures in media, politics, civil society and academia. Its members include former Danish prime minister Helle Thorning-Schmidt, University of Notre Dame professor Paolo Carozza, Prospect magazine editor Alan Rusbridger, Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Tawakkol Karman and Cato Institute Vice President John Samples. The Oversight Board reviewed a Facebook post that shared a video in which a woman films herself confronting a transgender woman for using the women's bathroom, according to the board's description of the case. The woman asked the trans woman why she was using the women's bathroom. The board is also reviewing an Instagram post sharing a video of a transgender girl winning a sports competition in the United States, with some spectators expressing disapproval of the result. The post refers to the trans athlete as a boy, according to the board. Both posts, which were shared last year, were reported by users as violating the company's hate speech and bullying and harassment policies. But Meta left the posts up, determining that the videos or posts didn't specifically call for the exclusion of trans people, according to one of the people and a description of the case from the Oversight Board. At least two of the users who originally reported the content appealed that decision to the board. Meta's old hate-speech or anti-harassment rules banned users from calling for the political, social or economic exclusion of people based on characteristics such as race, gender, or sexual orientation. Meta's new rules give users the freedom to say certain jobs, such as the military or teaching, should be limited by gender. Social media posters are also free under the new rules to say they support denying access to certain spaces on the basis of gender. Meta's rules never blocked users from 'misgendering' people, by using someone's non-preferred pronouns. Meta initially told the Oversight Board that the posts didn't break the rules but that even if they did, they would be considered exempt under the company's newsworthiness allowance. Later, Meta reviewed its new hate-speech rules with the Oversight Board, whose members took them into consideration for its ruling, two of the people said. Since the board took up the cases in August, activists on both sides of the issue have weighed in. GLAAD argued that the posts should be considered a violation of the company's hate-speech rules because misgendering someone is equivalent to 'denying [the] existence' of people based on a sensitive characteristic. By contrast, the Independent Women's Forum argued that allowing the contested videos to be posted is a crucial tool for women to be able to advocate against having trans women, whom they call men, use women-only spaces. For now, Meta is siding with the latter. Zuckerberg told podcaster Joe Rogan in January that one reason the company changed its rules is because then-defence secretary nominee Pete Hegseth's previous criticism of policies allowing women in combat would probably be debated in his confirmation hearing. 'If it's okay to say on the floor of Congress, you should probably be able to debate it on social media,' Zuckerberg said.
Boston Globe
23-04-2025
- Politics
- Boston Globe
Videos disparaging trans women aren't hate speech, Meta board says
The Oversight Board sided with Meta early Wednesday and ruled that the two posts about trans people didn't violate the company's hate-speech rules. The board's decisions on specific cases are considered binding. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up The ruling focuses on disparaging comments accompanying two videos, one showing a trans woman using a woman's bathroom and another showing a trans girl winning a female sports competition. The videos and posts responding to them circulated on social media last year. In both cases, Meta determined that while posts about the videos questioned a trans person's gender identity, they didn't violate its rules against hate speech or harassment. Advertisement Both posts came to the Oversight Board's attention after being reshared by conservative activist Chaya Raichik, who operates several controversial social media accounts known as Libs of TikTok, according to four people familiar with the matter. Raichik's social media accounts have become a fixture in American politics, and she has amassed an audience of millions while routinely attacking the cultural acceptance of trans people. Libs of TikTok has been blamed for sparking threats at hospitals and encouraging restrictions on LGBTQ+ -related content in schools. Raichik said the allegations about hospitals are false. Related : Advertisement The Oversight Board's ruling is the first major test of Meta's latest efforts to rebrand itself for a MAGA-dominated Washington. Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg pledged in January to take the company back to its roots by 'restoring free expression' after years of what he said were too many restrictions on speech. That same month, Meta weakened its hate-speech rules, offering users greater freedom to call for gender-based restrictions in bathrooms, sports and specific schools, and to characterize gay people as mentally ill. The Oversight Board as a whole said the posts didn't violate Meta's new or old hate-speech rules because they did not directly attack people based on their gender identity. A minority on the board argued that the posts would have violated Meta's old hate-speech rules The board on Wednesday also issued a broader critique of Meta's latest policy changes, including calling on the social media giant to improve how it enforces violations of its bullying and harassment rules. The Oversight Board planned to release the gender identity case ruling, among several others, next week but moved up the announcement to early Wednesday after a Washington Post reporter requested comment this week on the pending ruling. Ayobami Olugbemiga, a spokesperson for the Oversight Board, said the group would offer a comment for this report by the end of the day Tuesday but did not. Advertisement Meta spokesman Corey Chambliss said in a statement Wednesday that the company appreciates 'the work of the Oversight Board' and welcomes its decisions. Clegg didn't respond to a request for comment. Even before Wednesday's ruling, the board's judgment on the gender identity cases had become a lightning rod among social media policy watchers, attracting scores of comments about how the group should rule, including from LGTBQ+ advocacy groups and conservative critics. The ruling could also affect how other internet platforms draw the line about what is considered acceptable speech amid a fierce global debate about the rights of trans people. Related : 'This ruling tells LGBTQ people all we need to know about Meta's attitude towards its LGBTQ users — anti-LGBTQ hate, and especially anti-trans hate is welcome on Meta's platforms,' Sarah Kate Ellis, CEO of Critics argue that leaving the content up could open the door to more harmful rhetoric about trans people, at a time when the LGBTQ+ community is facing rising harassment and legislative efforts to limit trans people's ability to use bathrooms or compete in sports competitions in accordance with their gender identity. Meanwhile, conservative free-speech advocates argue that people should be allowed to criticize the rights of trans people — a position that polls show is gaining popularity among the general public in the United States. 'This isn't hate speech,' said Beth Parlato, a senior legal adviser for Independent Women's Law Center, a conservative group that advocates for restrictions on trans people's participation in sports and their presence in bathrooms and locker rooms that match their gender identity. Advertisement 'More than half of the country believes there are two sexes — male and female — and we should not be quieted or censored from discussing any issues that involve transgenders,' she added. The Oversight Board is undergoing its own reinvention, five years after it launched as an experimental way for Meta to off-load contentious content-moderation decisions to an independent party. Critics of the board, both inside and outside the company, have alleged that it has moved too slowly to issue decisions, failed to substantially change the company's approach to moderation, and operated at too hefty a price tag. Some have also characterized the Oversight Board as too liberal, applying pressure that incentivized the group to take up the gender identity cases in the first place, one of the people said. The 21-member Oversight Board, which is funded by the tech company but operates independently, includes a global roster of well-known public figures in media, politics, civil society and academia. Its members include former Danish prime minister Helle Thorning-Schmidt, University of Notre Dame professor Paolo Carozza, Prospect magazine editor Alan Rusbridger, Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Tawakkol Karman and Cato Institute Vice President John Samples. The Oversight Board reviewed a Facebook post that shared a video in which a woman films herself confronting a transgender woman for using the women's bathroom, according to the board's description of the case. The woman asked the trans woman why she was using the women's bathroom. The board is also reviewing an Instagram post sharing a video of a transgender girl winning a sports competition in the United States, with some spectators expressing disapproval of the result. The post refers to the trans athlete as a boy, according to the board. Related : Advertisement Both posts, which were shared last year, were reported by users as violating the company's hate speech and bullying and harassment policies. But Meta left the posts up, determining that the videos or posts didn't specifically call for the exclusion of trans people, according to one of the people and a description of the case from the Oversight Board. At least two of the users who originally reported the content appealed that decision to the board. Meta's old hate-speech or anti-harassment rules banned users from calling for the political, social or economic exclusion of people based on characteristics such as race, gender, or sexual orientation. Meta's new rules give users the freedom to say certain jobs, such as the military or teaching, should be limited by gender. Social media posters are also free under the new rules to say they support denying access to certain spaces on the basis of gender. Meta's rules never blocked users from 'misgendering' people, by using someone's non-preferred pronouns. Meta initially told the Oversight Board that the posts didn't break the rules but that even if they did, they would be considered exempt under the company's newsworthiness allowance. Later, Meta reviewed its new hate-speech rules with the Oversight Board, whose members took them into consideration for its ruling, two of the people said. Since the board took up the cases in August, activists on both sides of the issue have weighed in. GLAAD argued that the posts should be considered a violation of the company's hate-speech rules because misgendering someone is equivalent to 'denying [the] existence' of people based on a sensitive characteristic. By contrast, the Independent Women's Forum argued that allowing the contested videos to be posted is a crucial tool for women to be able to advocate against having trans women, whom they call men, use women-only spaces. Advertisement For now, Meta is siding with the latter. Zuckerberg told podcaster Joe Rogan in January that one reason the company changed its rules is because then-defense secretary nominee Pete Hegseth's previous criticism of policies allowing women in combat would probably be debated in his confirmation hearing. 'If it's okay to say on the floor of Congress, you should probably be able to debate it on social media,' Zuckerberg said.
Yahoo
03-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
OSDE facing lawsuit seeking records related to appointment of controversial ‘Libs of TikTok' influencer
OKLAHOMA CITY (KFOR) — A nonprofit group is suing Oklahoma State Superintendent Ryan Walters, the Oklahoma State Department of Education (OSDE), and controversial social media influencer Chaya Raichik, accusing them of violating Oklahoma's Open Records Act and Open Meeting Oklahoma Appleseed Center for Law and Justice filed the lawsuit in Oklahoma County on Tuesday after the center says OSDE ignored its requests for public records related to Raichik's appointment to an OSDE advisory. Walters created the board in January 2020, he said, to review content in books available in public school was January 2024 when Walters began the month's State Board of Education, announcing he had chosen Chaya Raichik, the New York woman behind a controversial Twitter account called 'Libs of TikTok,' to serve on the new advisory board. OSBE meeting postponed last second after almost breaking the law 'I do have a video message I want to play for everyone,' Walters said to begin the meeting. 'This is a special message from our newly appointed member of our advisory council, Chaya Raichik.' 'We are going to take back our schools,' Raichik said in a video Walters played. Her appointment was part of Walters' crusade against so-called pornography he claimed had been plaguing school libraries in the state. 'We're gonna remove pornography and inappropriate material and liberal indoctrination from schools,' Chaya Raichik said.'[Raichik] been very helpful to us,' Ryan Walters later said in January announcement did not sit right with a large number of people, who argued Walters had never shown any evidence to validate his claims of porn being available in Oklahoma school libraries, and Raichik posed a danger to Oklahoma schools. 'Protect our kids!' a woman shouted during the January 2024 her social media, Raichik has gained millions of followers by reposting TikTok content, often from teachers, while making her own far-right commentary on 2023, she posted about a Union Public Schools shared the post while commenting, 'Woke ideology is real and I am here to stop it!'After that, Union Public Schools campuses received a slew of bomb threats.'You can associate her platform, Libs of TikTok, with 225 bombing threats across the United States,' then-Oklahoma State Rep. Mark McBride told News 4 in January 2024.'My kid better not get a bomb threat at their school because of this!' another woman shouted at the Jan. 2024 meeting. Supt. Walters settles ethics complaint, still faces separate investigation 'It was really confusing to all Oklahoma advocates that work in education because she doesn't have anything to do with education or books or anything like that,' said Coleen McCarty, an attorney with the Oklahoma Appleseed Center for Law and Justice. '[Raichik] refers to herself as a stochastic terrorist… essentially someone who terrorizes other people intentionally on an intellectual basis. The people that follow her account call in bomb threats on the person. They, they stalk that person, they dox that person. It's intentionally cruel and intentionally supposed to quell people's speech about their beliefs or about things that they disagree with.'McCarty wanted to know more about how Walters came to his decision to add Raichik to that library committee.'We put in some Open Records Act requests to find out why she was added to it, who else is on the advisory council, what meetings they have had, and what decisions they have made,' McCarty was more than a year sent her group a confirmation email letting them know the request had been received. But beyond that.'We've never gotten any responses,' Coleen McCarty still do not have any of the records they months-long wait has raised eyebrows for former assistant Oklahoma Attorney General Tim Gilpin.'The Open Records Act here in Oklahoma requires a reasonable time to respond,' Tim Gilpin said. 'It expects the government official to use expedited and normal means to respond in a timely fashion.'He says at this point, there's really only one course of action to take.'Typically, that the individual or the entity seeking the records goes to the courts and essentially argues that they're not responding,' said Tim why Oklahoma Appleseed filed that lawsuit against Walters, Raichik, and OSDE in Oklahoma County District Court on Tuesday.'We've alleged both open records and open meetings, act violations,' McCarty said. 'This is not a party issue. This is a government transparency issue. We felt like Oklahomans deserve to know why something this sort of bombastic would be a part of our state government's decision-making processes.'News 4 reached out to OSDE with several questions for did not answer them, but instead, he issued a statement calling the lawsuit politically motivated and saying, in part, 'OSDE… remains committed to transparency and compliance with all legal requirements.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
03-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Nonprofit sues Ryan Walters, library board, alleging open records and open meetings violations
An Oklahoma nonprofit already involved in multiple lawsuits against state schools Superintendent Ryan Walters has added another, alleging violations of open meeting and public records laws by Walters and the agency he leads, the Oklahoma State Department of Education. The lawsuit, filed Tuesday in Oklahoma County District Court by the Tulsa-based Oklahoma Appleseed Center for Law and Justice, alleges violations of the Open Meeting Act related to the creation and operation of the Library Media Advisory Committee, a public body tasked with reviewing school library materials. The lawsuit also contends the state agency has failed to comply with the Open Records Act by withholding requested public documents regarding the formation, membership selection and activities of the library committee. The case has been assigned to District Judge Anthony Bonner. No hearing dates have been set. During a meeting of the Oklahoma State Board of Education in January 2024, Walters disclosed the formation of the committee, a panel he said would include Chaya Raichik, the woman behind the conservative 'Libs of TikTok' social media account. Raichik also is named as a defendant in the lawsuit. She and Walters often trade congratulatory social media posts, and a video of her praising Walters for the library committee's formation was shown during that state board meeting. Also named as defendants were the state education board, that board's current members and former member Kendra Wesson, and the library committee. "This lawsuit is nothing more than a politically motivated attack by a radical, Soros-funded organization determined to obstruct the work being done in Oklahoma," Walters said. "These extremists are using the legal system to harass and obstruct progress in an effort to push their radical agenda. OSDE will not be bullied by extremist organizations trying to weaponize the courts and remains committed to transparency and compliance with all legal requirements." Walters' claim about Oklahoma Appleseed being funded by liberal billionaire George Soros is false. Walters is, or has been, a defendant in at least 20 state and federal lawsuits filed since he took office in January 2023. Despite multiple open records requests from multiple media outlets, Walters and the state agency have steadfastly declined to identify any other members of the library committee, which appears to be a public committee, given its work for a state agency. The state Education Department has said the committee is a volunteer advisory board appointed by Walters and is made up of parents, current or retired librarians, and English literature teachers. Oklahoma Appleseed says despite repeated requests, the agency has not provided information on how library committee members — specifically Raichik — were appointed and how the committee conducts its business. The lawsuit claims the state agency and the library committee have violated the Open Meeting Act by failing to hold public meetings, post agendas or conduct public votes. Although the committee was publicly announced as a government advisory body, it has never met in compliance with the law, effectively operating in secrecy, according to the lawsuit. Oklahoma Appleseed also said it has yet to have a June 28 open records request, seeking information about the library committee, filled by the state Education Department. Open records provided to The Oklahoman last year gave a glimpse into how the committee was formed and some of its work, but did not include its membership list, which has been requested multiple times by the newspaper. The committee has not been mentioned publicly by Walters since an Oklahoma Supreme Court decision effectively voided a handful of the agency's administrative rules — pushed by Walters and approved by the state Board of Education ― including one giving the agency the authority to determine what books could be in the libraries of individual school districts. That decision stemmed from a lawsuit originally filed by Edmond Public Schools. The court ruled that to be a decision reserved to local school boards, not any state agency or board. Oklahoma Appleseed seeks a court order compelling the Education Department to release all requested public records and requiring the library committee to comply with Open Meetings Act requirements. Brent Rowland, the legal director of Oklahoma Appleseed, said the lawsuit filed Tuesday was about government transparency and accountability. 'The public has a right to know who is making decisions affecting its public schools,' Rowland said. 'Oklahomans have a right to expect that their government will follow the law regarding open records and open meetings. 'In this instance, the state Department of Education has formed a Library Media Advisory Committee to make decisions about students' access to books when our state Supreme Court has determined those decisions should be made by local school boards. State officials cannot hide behind closed doors and avoid public accountability, and why would they want to?' Oklahoma Appleseed is a party to at least two other lawsuits involving Walters, one in the Oklahoma Supreme Court regarding his Bible mandate and one that's been appealed to the same court. That case was filed by a Moore Public Schools student seeking to change their pronouns in school records. (This story was updated to add new information.) This article originally appeared on Oklahoman: Nonprofit sues Ryan Walters over open records, Libs of TikTok hire
The Guardian
30-01-2025
- Politics
- The Guardian
How do Democrats harness #DarkWoke?
As Donald Trump stood in the Capitol Rotunda last week, blundering his way through his second oath of office, online liberals were preoccupied with debating another matter: who will be the first Democrat to call Republicans the R-word? Setting aside the question of whether they should a term widely considered an ableist slur, that very debate was revealing, for a number of reasons. The former and now current president's narrow but nonetheless triumphant victory in November made clear that America's so-called 'wokeness movement' is in an advanced stage of decay. And if Trump's first week back in the White House serves as any indication, he intends to further accelerate the process. During his inaugural address, he vowed to 'end the government policy of trying to socially engineer race and gender into every aspect of public and private life'. The days to follow saw him make good on that pledge. He issued an executive order terminating 'illegal DEI' throughout federal agencies, revoked a Johnson-era anti-discrimination hiring rule, and threatened government workers with 'adverse consequences' if they don't snitch (in a Stasi-esque fashion) on colleagues who resist his purge. Corporate America took notice and quickly followed suit. On Friday, Target announced it would roll back its diversity, equity, and inclusion programs, joining other commercial giants like Walmart, McDonald's, Amazon, and Meta. This is not all too surprising; big business has nakedly, if not erotically, signaled its willingness to accommodate Trump since the day after the election. What's more curious is the lack of pushback from Democrats. Sure, MSNBC was sent into a tizzy; however, as noted by the National Review, an open letter promising to protect DEI from state-level Democratic lawmakers managed to garner a mere 39 signatures. For context, there are 7,386 state legislators in the US. To borrow a term from Charlie Sykes, the 'clown with a flamethrower' took aim at wokeness and set it ablaze. Some will be overjoyed by this reality; many others will be devastated by its consequences. However, what's most interesting is how it seems an offshoot of the social movement has already emerged from the ashes. On the morning of inauguration day, #DarkWoke began trending on Twitter/X. The hashtag – ostensibly a tongue-in-cheek reference to 'Dark Brandon' – emerged in reaction to an exchange between the Democratic congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and the far-right influencer Chaya Raichik. Over the weekend, Ocasio-Cortez posted an Instagram Reel in which she explained her lack of interest in attending any inaugural festivities. 'I don't celebrate rapists,' she says bluntly. Raichik, whose social media account @LibsofTikTok is widely recognized for proliferating the anti-LGBT 'groomer' moral panic, shared the video, declaring 'another person Trump should sue'. The Congresswoman then retweeted Raichik, stating: 'Oh, are you triggered? Cry more.' The post accrued more than 17m views, and in the process it birthed both a meme and a debate about Democrats' approach to messaging for the next four years. From 10,000 feet, #DarkWoke appears to be little more than an internet exercise of dirtbag left gallows humor. The most viral tweet associated with the hashtag reads 'my Grandma voted for Trump so i made sure she fell down the stairs.' Attached to the post is a – presumably – staged photo of an elderly white woman recoiling in pain. Another example pairs an image of the Philadelphia Flyers' official mascot, Gritty, waving a Pride banner with the caption: 'When he bludgeons homophobes with that flag that's #DarkWoke.' One could dismiss the whole affair as black-pilled shitposting – aimless, nihilistic musings from a despairing online left. It would be a mistake for Democrats to come to this conclusion. As Ezra Klein argued in an essay last fall, 'disinhibition is the engine of Trump's success. It is a strength. It is what makes him magnetic and compelling on a stage. It is what allows him to say things others would not say, to make arguments they would not make, to try strategies they would not try.' Disinhibition, Klein asserts, is Trump's primary trait as a person; he acts in front of a camera just as newly minted defense secretary Pete Hegseth does after a triple cocktail breakfast. Over the course of the Trump era, the president has forcibly installed disinhibition as the primary trait of the Republican party. #DarkWoke is a demand for Democrats to embrace it too; it's a call for the party to fight the messaging war that actually exists, not the one they wish existed. Should liberals start using slurs? No – and anyone who seriously entertains such a question has no business crafting comms strategy. It's clear that Democrats current approach to messaging, however, is broken – and party leaders have no conception of how to fix it. At a Senate Democratic luncheon last week, Cory Booker attempted to walk his colleagues through strategies to reach voters in the modern media environment. According to reporting from CNN, the best model they could come up with was a video of Senator Mark Warner making a tuna melt. Yes, in the same week Bishop Mariann Budde enjoyed a 72-hour news cycle for summoning the courage to call Trump a bigot to his face, Democratic lawmakers decided the secret to electoral success is sandwich tutorial videos. On a New York Times podcast earlier this month, MSNBC host Chris Hayes attempted to explain the fundamental asymmetry that exists between Democrats and Republicans with regard to the 'attentional ecosystem'. Democrats, Hayes argues, 'still believe that the type of attention you get is the most important thing. If your choice is between a lot of negative attention and no attention, go for no attention … the Trump side of the Republican Party believes that the volume, the sum total of attention, is the most important thing. And a lot of negative attention: not only fine – maybe great.' The Democrats who have emerged as the most successful communicators in the last few years – Congresswoman Jasmine Crockett, Senator Chris Murphy, Senator John Fetterman, and the aforementioned Ocasio-Cortez – are those who made a concerted effort to reject this conventional risk aversion. They curse, they go on Fox News, and they're extremely aggressive in calling out their conservative counterparts. They've renounced the long Democratic tradition of bringing not a knife to a gun fight but a butter knife to a bazooka fight. Their messaging reflects the urgency of this moment. In response to the Trump administration's move to freeze trillions of dollars in federal grants and loans, minority leader Chuck Schumer should not have waited hours upon hours to finally issue a marble-mouthed, oddly sexual statement from behind a podium. No, the most talented Democratic communicators should have been immediately deployed to nursing homes and pre-schools in their respective districts. They should have taken to Instagram Live and decried – with F-bombs aplenty – the utter inhumanity of throwing the future of Medicaid and Head Start into doubt. Maga's approach to media strategy is shock and awe, overwhelming and all-consuming. It's border czar Tom Homan riding along with armed ICE agents with film crews in tow. It's cosplay, yes – but it's darkly captivating cosplay. Democrats cannot beat that with a counter-strategy as well thought-out and executed as the withdrawal from Afghanistan. In Trump's America, disinhibition and transgression – not tuna melts – are the most powerful signifiers of authenticity. #DarkWoke is a plea for liberals to recognize this reality. Peter Rothpletz is a freelance writer
