You reap what you sow. #vidcon should know who you are & what you’ve done to people like me. Enough w the lies, the twisting of facts, the doxxing, the playing victim. @VidCon take a hint for next year - we have all had enough of Taylor Lorenz.
Go follow @CelinaSpookyBoo • It’s not her fault Taylor Lorenz likely scared everyone away from her panel @ #vidcon An embarrassed Lorenz then diminishes Celina’s successful career by gaslighting ppl into thinking Celina has a “smaller fan base”. She has 27M+ #TaylorLorenzIsALiar
.@CelinaSpookyBoo drew a crowd at #vidcon today. And I’m not being sarcastic today. Wonder what excuse Taylor Lorenz will make now.
.@toxicmaleclips went to the Taylor Lorenz misinformation panel so we didn’t have to.
🚨 Candace, Candace, Candace… you were so close. You had it—Taylor Swift’s PR empire, Ronan Farrow playing industry nepo-enforcer, The NYT running protection—but then you lost the plot. 🧵
Justin Baldoni vs. Blake Lively is a textbook NYT takedown—a playbook I know firsthand.
You really think the NYT wouldn’t “risk their reputation” for Blake Lively? Girl. That’s not a risk for them—it’s their entire business model.
The NYT doesn’t make moves based on reputation. They make them based on who benefits.
And trust me, a lot of people benefited from taking down Baldoni.
Let’s explore, shall we?
The NYT got a juicy Hollywood feud to milk for clicks and to keep their “we break every MeToo story” branding alive.
Lively’s publicist took out top entertainment PR heavyweights—Melissa Nathan, Jennifer Abel, and Jed Wallace—some of the biggest names in crisis and Hollywood publicity.
And Taylor Swift? She got to take a jab at Scooter Braun—who just so happens to have funded the crisis PR firm run by Melissa Nathan, one of the key players behind Johnny Depp’s comeback. 🤔
I’m not a gossip reporter. I run a startup, and in 2 weeks I’ve pulled 3 all-nighters covering the Justin Baldoni vs. Blake Lively saga after working my regular day.
Here’s why I’m going to keep covering it—and why you should care. 🧵
Smear campaigns are real. They’re designed to destroy reputations, ruin lives, and shift public opinion.
And while Justin Baldoni is lucky to have a billionaire backing him, most people don’t stand a chance when they’re targeted.
Regular people can’t fight Hollywood power players, PR firms, or media outlets with unlimited budgets. Their only hope?
If YOU, the public, learn how to decipher smear tactics and call them out when you see them.
You might hate me for saying this, but creators are already moving on from TikT*k—and it’s not to 𝕏.
It’s a Chinese app called RedNote.👇🏽
RedNote, aka Xiaohongshu, is basically the Chinese owned version of TikTok mixed with Pinterest. And Americans? They’re downloading it like it’s Black Friday at Target.
People are giggling in bed setting up their profiles and asking Chinese users, “How do you feel about us being here?” The top comment? “In the club, we all fam.”
Here’s the shady part: RedNote’s terms of service require you to follow Chinese laws—even if you’re not in China. Sounds like a trap, right?”
Break them while you’re in the U.S.? You’re fine. But if you travel to China? Welcome to Midnight Express: The Sequel—but this time, you’re stuck in a Chinese jail for breaking app rules.
Just move to another platform’ or ‘build a new algorithm.’ That’s what lawmakers & the Supreme Court say about TikTok.
But TikTok isn’t just any algorithm—it’s the only one where anyone can go viral overnight. Here’s what made the TikTok algo as addicting as your toxic ex:🧵
TikTok’s algorithm is built on discovery, not popularity.
When you post a video, it doesn’t care if you have 12 followers or 12 million. It shows your content to ~300 random people and analyzes their behavior:
Did they rewatch?
Did they finish it?
Did they share it?
Based on these interactions, TikTok calculates a “goodness score.”
These clauses are common in high-profile contracts. They allow termination if someone’s actions—legal or not—damage a brand or project.
Possible Examples?
•Roseanne: Offensive tweets.
•Kevin Spacey: Misconduct allegations.
•Johnny Depp: Bad press & lawsuits.
If Baldoni’s deal had a morality clause, Hoover or Sony could have an out if his behavior caused reputational harm.
It might explain why Lively’s complaint emphasizes harm to the project’s image. This could be about the movie rights—not just the allegations.
What would this look like?
•Trigger: Behavior that “causes reputational harm” (vague but effective).
•Impact: Public backlash could activate this clause, even if the behavior doesn’t meet a legal threshold.
It’s a perfect Hollywood power move.
Of course… just an unproven theory as I ponder what Lively’s motive was.
Hi, I’m Ari. 👋 I went from managing TikTok stars like Charli D’Amelio to surviving cancel culture & Hollywood/media bullies. Now, I help businesses & public figures master social media w my AI startup, CreatorGenius.com — Follow for more! x.com/littlemissjaco…
If you’re here for the story about what happened with Taylor Lorenz and the NYT, I recommend checking out @bostwiki’s video. He breaks down what went down and exposes how bad journalists operate. I’m grateful to him for covering my story and exposing bad journalism.