Ariadna Jacob Profile picture
Jan 3 15 tweets 6 min read Read on X
After reading both Blake Lively & Justin Baldoni’s lawsuits, here’s my honest take—and why this hits close to home.

When I managed a house of TikTok stars, my job was to enforce the rules: no jumping off the roof into the pool, no stealing, everyone makes the content agreed to. Basic stuff, right?
When I read Baldoni’s lawsuit, it hit close to home.

I’ve been there: labeled a villain in my own story by people I trusted to help build something great.
Here’s what happened:
I built The Kids Next Door, a TikTok house that thrived during the pandemic. My job? Simple. Enforce the rules, make sure everyone created the content they agreed to, and handle the contracts that ensured we all got paid.
But success comes with a target on your back. The influencers didn’t want rules. They didn’t want accountability. They wanted to do the bare minimum, rake in the money, and never honor their agreements.
They wanted to spray paint "Ari is a bitch" all over the walls. Then came the fake victimhood.
At first, they grumbled about me behind closed doors. Then, when the New York Times came to write about our success, it became open war.
The biggest TikTokers in the house started scheming. Their plan? Destroy my reputation. If they made me look like a villain, they wouldn’t have to pay what they owed.
And it worked—for a while. They played up the “Kids” angle, even though most of them were over 21. They sold the idea that I was some evil, power-hungry boss exploiting young creators.
Then Taylor Lorenz got involved. She didn’t care about the truth. She cared about the headline. She cozied up to the influencers, wrote a glowing puff piece to gain their trust, and used it as a springboard to tear me down in the New York Times. Image
The result? I was painted as the bad guy. But here’s the kicker: while they burned down what we built, they didn’t realize they were torching themselves, too. The TikTokers? Their careers fizzled. Lorenz? She's done.
The influencers sided with NYT and Taylor Lorenz and with the 2 powerful influencers in the house. Once the whispers started, the rest of the influencers didn’t stand a chance. They heard the lies so many times, they started to believe them. And suddenly, anything I did—enforcing rules, asking for what I was owed—became “proof” that I was the villain.
It reminds me of what Baldoni’s going through. Not everyone from This Is Us is lying or bad, but when you hear enough rumors from powerful voices, it’s easy to see how they might think, “Maybe Lively’s right. Maybe Baldoni’s the problem.” People I did so much for unfollowed me too.
When I see Baldoni fighting back, I get it. People don’t realize how easy it is to twist the truth and destroy someone just because they were in charge.

The media? They love to create villains. But what about the protections for people like us? The ones who take risks, build something real, and end up paying the price when others can’t handle it?

Here’s the hard truth: people don’t need proof to believe a story. They just need someone loud enough to tell it.

And sometimes, the person telling it has a bigger motive.
In my case, the influencers didn’t just want me out of the picture—they wanted what I built. They wanted control of the house, the deals, the narrative. They wanted everything I had created without having to work for it.

So they set out to end me.

Is that what’s happening between Lively and Baldoni? Maybe, maybe not. But the timing and intensity of this story make you wonder: does she want something he has?
I hope that’s not the case. And to be fair, there’s no solid proof to suggest that’s what’s happening here—yet.

But it’s a reminder to keep an open mind. Narratives are powerful, and they’re rarely black and white. In situations like these, the loudest voice doesn’t always tell the whole truth.

To clarify: I wasn’t accused of sexual harassment. My situation was different. The accusations against me were about control, contracts, and money. But the pattern is eerily similar: the person in charge—whether it’s Baldoni or me—gets painted as the villain because that’s the story people want to believe.
And as someone who’s sortof been in Baldoni’s shoes, I can tell you this: the truth takes time, but it always comes out. / END

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Ariadna Jacob

Ariadna Jacob Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @littlemissjacob

Jan 2
The saga continues: Blake Lively sues Justin Baldoni, following her Christmas Eve CRD complaint—dubbed a “dodge to avoid discovery” by Baldoni’s lawyers. Well, Lively’s team just said, “Hold my florals.”

What’s new, what they’ll have to prove, and is there a smoking gun? 🧵 Image
First, the differences:

The initial California complaint was filed with the state’s Civil Rights Department (CRD)—basically step one to getting permission to sue.

This new lawsuit is a federal case filed in NY. It combines California laws with Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, widening the scope.

Why NY? Interstate allegations: PR firms and media tactics operating across state lines.
This new lawsuit is federal, filed in New York (SDNY—same court where I sued the NYT for defamation). Why?

1️⃣ It widens the scope, adding Title VII (federal workplace law) to California claims.
2️⃣ NY courts handle media and defamation cases where harm crosses state lines.
3️⃣ Anti-SLAPP: California has stricter rules to stop “Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation.” If Baldoni’s team won an anti-SLAPP motion there, Lively might’ve faced hefty fees. NY’s version isn’t as harsh.
Read 17 tweets
Jan 1
Justin Baldoni is suing The New York Times, which hasn’t reportedly lost a libel case since the 1960s. As someone who’s also sued the NYT, here’s what stands out: texts show Baldoni told his team NOT to attack Blake Lively, & he claims the “list of demands” is 100% fabricated. 🧵 Image
Image
Ryan Reynolds allegedly lost it on Baldoni in a meeting because Baldoni wouldn’t apologize for things he says never happened. The complaint basically says a Sony exec called it the most unhinged meeting of their 40-year career. Image
Baldoni’s complaint says Lively’s 30-point “no more” list is completely fabricated. He never saw it, never signed off on it, and says it was only added to her CRD filing to make him look guilty. The constant “no more” phrasing? Designed to imply these things had already happened—when he says they hadn’t.
Image
Read 22 tweets
Dec 31, 2024
Listening to Nick Viall & co. dissect the Blake Lively vs. Justin Baldoni complaint, it’s clear they see it as absolute and damning. But having lived through manipulative lawfare & PR myself, I know it’s never that simple. 🧵
Defending yourself when someone files a lawsuit full of accusations isn’t just hard—it’s a PR and legal nightmare.

I’ve been there. I sued Taylor Lorenz and the New York Times. I also took on a major Hollywood talent agency. Here’s what I’ve learned:
A “complaint” isn’t a verdict. It’s one side’s story, written to be as persuasive as possible. Often, it’s designed to weaponize public perception before a trial even begins.

In my case, I saw how powerful players used media spin to discredit me before I could respond.
Read 15 tweets
Dec 30, 2024
Earlier today, a client sent me an email about a company promising to “fix his Instagram” with 10k new followers a month—no bots, no password sharing. Sounds great, right?

As someone who specializes in short-form content, let me explain why it’s a terrible idea.🧵
These kinds of messages land in the inboxes of every business owner, coach, and creator I work with. They’re worded to sound like they’ve analyzed your account and are genuinely impressed. They promise growth and engagement without risk or effort.

Here’s how they operate (and why it’s a bad idea).Image
Companies like TrendGram often:

Use engagement pods or automated tools that mimic activity.
Generate followers who aren’t real people (or are low-quality, inactive users).
Violate Instagram’s terms of service, putting your account at risk of shadowbanning or worse.
The promises? Too good to be true.
Read 9 tweets
Dec 28, 2024
Some of you spent Christmas dragging Sriram Krishnan through the mud without knowing a thing about him. He didn’t stumble into tech’s inner circle—he built his path, brick by brick, from India to Silicon Valley. Before you embarrass yourself further, keep reading. You might learn something. 🧵Image
Sriram Krishnan’s story doesn’t start in Silicon Valley. It starts in Chennai, India, where his family couldn’t afford a computer until he was 17.

When he finally got one, it cost his dad a year’s salary. Sriram taught himself to code using a pirated version of Windows.
Years later, a blog post he wrote caught the attention of a Microsoft exec visiting India.

Sriram wasn’t just invited to demo his work—he was flown out to present it in front of thousands. His first time on a plane, in a hotel, ever. Microsoft hired him on the spot.
Read 18 tweets
Dec 27, 2024
I guarantee no one’s breaking down the Blake Lively vs. Justin Baldoni complaint like this. Lawyers & PR teams are betting you’ll take their version at face value, but I’ve seen this playbook before—and I’m going to show you how it works. Buckle up. 🧵 Image
Full disclosure: I take no pleasure in doing Bryan Freedman’s (Baldoni’s lawyer) job for him. This is the same attorney who repped a behemoth talent agency I sued once. But exposing Hollywood’s smear tactics? That’s a personal passion. So why not? 😅

Anyway, who can blame Freedman for being good at his job? I will call a truce to cover this fairly, just for you guys.Image
The complaint paints Baldoni as orchestrating a smear campaign against Lively for speaking out about workplace harassment. Sounds explosive—but here’s the kicker: much of the “evidence” relies on implication, not proof. Image
Read 23 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(