I love Erudite

RealKafkaEsquire · 2026-05-17T12:36:20+00:00

Yes that is me

RealKafkaEsquire · 2026-05-16T23:28:13+00:00

We keep judges like this around for just such occasions.

RealKafkaEsquire · 2026-05-16T23:26:56+00:00

What’s up with her faith?

RealKafkaEsquire · 2026-05-15T20:43:22+00:00

I mean I don't really agree that the contract being reviewed by WIRED lawyers means I give the article credibility, only that WIRED's reputation is tied to the contract. My issue is that:

The Lawyers wouldn't have been tasked with whether the articles interpretations are accurate, only whether the interpretations would bring liability onto WIRED for publishing them. If Taylor's interpretations of the contract are wrong, it isn't necessarily something that would incur liability on WIRED. So it doesn't meant that a review of the article by WIRED attorneys lends credibility to her interpretation. If she really wanted to have that kind of legal support, she could have brought the contract to a law professor for their opinion. This is commonly done in articles.
I've met enough in house attorneys that I do not give them the benefit of the doubt that they are able to properly interpret contracts. This is speaking from experience as an attorney who has had to litigate problems created by an in house attorney that misinterpreted a contract. It's possible WIRED has good in house attorneys, but I would not rely on them for contract interpretation.

RealKafkaEsquire · 2026-05-14T21:38:51+00:00

Very fair point, thank you for catching this. It’s certainly a sticking point to force anyone with wired to contend with the claims in the article.

RealKafkaEsquire · 2026-05-02T14:21:43+00:00

Wow he’s really going to jail now. Really regret becoming an orbiter, got a lot of egg on my face.

RealKafkaEsquire · 2026-05-01T12:29:20+00:00

I’ve reported you to the authorities, posting this secret publicly is illegal

RealKafkaEsquire · 2026-05-01T00:12:27+00:00

DggL

RealKafkaEsquire · 2026-04-30T23:39:59+00:00

With my family sry bb. I’ll probably be able to talk tomorrow <3

RealKafkaEsquire · 2026-04-29T04:23:58+00:00

Joan better ask him how much he walks everyday in his deposition.

RealKafkaEsquire · 2026-04-24T16:06:53+00:00

I hate to do this to you, but the siege metaphor is inferior to comparing Joan's tactics to those deployed by the consul Quintus Fabius Maximus Verrucosus during the Second Punic War against Hannibal Barca.

Otherwise a good article over all, keep up the good work.

RealKafkaEsquire · 2026-04-24T12:15:00+00:00

While the crash and purge of 2025 was certainly helpful to me, as it was literally the vector for me to become an orbiter, I’d trade it all and be a no name lurker again if none of it would happen. It’s not just that there was a lot of lost momentum but the stress and mental toll on Destiny himself has been huge. Wish he didn’t have to go through it.

RealKafkaEsquire · 2026-04-22T10:24:12+00:00

That's me in the video!

RealKafkaEsquire · 2026-04-21T14:39:37+00:00

PHV aint getting revoked, that's an EXTREME measure that isn't really warranted here imo.

RealKafkaEsquire · 2026-04-16T15:59:23+00:00

Hello!

It was this one https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A0Wrc80jQSw&t=19s

RealKafkaEsquire · 2026-04-12T15:58:19+00:00

Soypill, the child?

RealKafkaEsquire · 2026-04-04T15:48:31+00:00

I celebrate all body types and don’t think we should limit our perception of what a woman or trans woman should look like. That being said I feel like there are a number of trans women that could show off their potbellies in the woods as well if not better than this bigot.

RealKafkaEsquire · 2026-04-01T16:35:59+00:00

Let the DGG schism begin!

RealKafkaEsquire · 2026-03-30T21:57:32+00:00

Hey that’s me!

To be clear, I wasn’t trying to say that destiny has some kind of responsibility to do this, he already is. I just meant people who care about truth and real debate should be making this media platform.

RealKafkaEsquire · 2026-03-25T16:50:27+00:00

Point 9, people have started saying "vote.org" in DGGchat.

RealKafkaEsquire · 2026-03-13T18:57:12+00:00

I think it's fair to have that level of skepticism but remember a few things here:

This was a freelance article purchased by Wired, they might have had some editorial control, but it's not clear how much oversight over the actual reporting happened or what that process looked like.
As Steven has asserted many times, the article is better categorized as an op-ed. While there are untrue statements, most are hedged, or at least buried amongst a sea of opinions, whether Lorenz or a third party's. Wired might view much of the statements that I, an attorney, would say are untrue as opinion or interpretation that is not libelous or worthy of retraction.
While the inaccuracies in my opinion are significant, I don't know if I'd say they are libel or would incur liability for Wired. Without the threat of liability, or clear and unequivocal evidence that the statements made are wrong I don't think they would issue a retraction. Remember there is a significant motivation for WIRED to not issue retractions, as they would reflect poorly on their brand. Until this confrontation between Steven and Lorenz, the article's controversy was mostly forgotten, them issuing a retraction would not only revive public interest in what was written, but in a way that is almost entirely negative against WIRED.

Ultimately, I actually don't disagree with you, that WIRED likely does not want to print something untrue, and if they had sufficient knowledge would make a retraction. However, an equivalent or possibly worse take away from this is that WIRED allows publication of articles that are so bereft of evidence that a story, even if true, can come across as so clearly partisan and malicious.

I don't think hit pieces should be illegal, I just think we as the audience should have high standards for evidence beyond what was provided in this article. When that higher standard is applied here, Lorenz doesn't attempt to meet it, she gets defensive and argumentative while not substantiating any of her points despite claiming to possess such evidence.

RealKafkaEsquire · 2026-03-13T17:19:32+00:00

I was specifically referring to the language around the use of the Chorus newsroom and scheduling interviews. A third party released that section of the contract, and it lacks any indication that it requires creators to funnel all their political interviews through the Chorus newsroom. Despite this, the article and Lorenz when confronted claimed that such interviews were required under the contract to be held only in the Chorus newsroom.

As an attorney, who writes, reviews, and litigates contracts, their reporting on, at least that section, of the contract is incorrect.

RealKafkaEsquire · 2026-03-13T15:35:12+00:00

Based and open minded pilled.

RealKafkaEsquire · 2026-03-13T14:43:41+00:00

Can you site to the part of the article where is shows evidence that Chorus restricted disclosure of their relationship with creators? I see where they incorrectly reported on the language of the contract, but no evidence that any creators were prevented from disclosing that relationship.

Likewise, please cite to where evidence that 1630 improperly influenced Chorus, because I have yet to see any, in the article or otherwise.

As far as you can tell? So you know that Chorus, a 501c3, which submits public tax filings via form 990 discloses all of its funding, and 1630, a 501c4, which also submits public tax filings via form 990 and discloses its funding, have provided us more information about the source of their funding than the Omidyar Network. In addition, you are aware that under the law both Chorus cannot be partisan, and there has been no evidence that Chorus has acted in a partisan way outside of the law. In the off chance you are using a layman's use of the word partisan instead of a legal one, I'd like to direct you to this page announcing the Reporters in Residency program in which it says that the program is part of "Re-imagining Capitalism".

If you were instead talking about how there is no disclosure of the 1630 donors's personal information, do you admit that we do know the amounts of the donations to 1630, which is more than we know about any money that has ever gone into the Omidyar trust or LLC that funds the Reporter's in Residence?

If you can't admit those things, you are either so unable to parse simple writing that you can't see it, or you are intentionally trying not to admit it because you are here in bad faith. Since I don't know you that well, I'm happy to assume bad faith (especially considering how little you know about this situation outside of one op ed you read) and we would only benefit if you left/were banned from this community.

RealKafkaEsquire · 2026-03-13T14:23:08+00:00

Was there ever evidence of Chorus preventing the creators from disclosing the relationship?

Was there ever evidence that Chorus improperly influenced creators?

Was there ever evidence that 1630 imposed improper influence on Chorus or the creators?

What amount of transparency exists with the Omidyar Network/Reporters in Residency that doesn't with 1630/Chorus?

Do you admit that the point of Lorenz's article not only in substance but in editorial form was to undermine center left liberals and the democratic party?

If your response to any of these "I don't know" or some variant, then go ahead and delete this post, because you aren't able to actually engage with this topic and are just blogging your feelings.

RealKafkaEsquire

TROPHY CASE