When I'm watching my favorite political influencer on TikTok, or YouTube, or anywhere, I want to know that they own their words. I want to be assured that a political power isn't whispering behind the curtains. That's how this works. It's a social contract. If we can't trust independent voices to be in fact independent from financial influence, then we have lost a powerful tool in the fight for freedom. These influencers are here on an all-expense paid trip for a closed-door meeting with unnamed congressional staffers under uncertain terms and unclear capacities.  Influencers who gain access for interviews, they are instructed what to touch on and what not to say. There are no rules of engagement, clear and stated ethical obligations, no creedos,  And this is where the special information effect comes in. Because when people objected to this event, most were told that they simply didn't have the special information provided to them. And were told essentially to shut up. If the goal was simply to find a way to disperse administration talking points to specific political influencers, why the all expense paid trip? That could've been an email. It's because it wasn't just about providing talking points. It was creating a situation where influencers felt pressure to present that information in the way the administration wanted. The Democrats provided an unprecedented level of access to people's who would inevitably grow dependent on that access in some way. We seem to worry a lot about the personal lives of influencers, and if they are leading moral lives based on the viewers, perception of morality. But rarely do we dissect or even talk about the ethical obligations of a political influencer when the red light is on.  And maybe we should have that discussion. They want the information to feel privileged because then you feel chosen Now influencers can push back and claim that access has not in any way influenced their reporting. And that very well may be true. That seems like a metric impossible to quantify so I would gladly take them at their word. I think combing through people's content for clues that they're shilling for democrats is a trap. It comes off as subjective accusations at best, paranoia at worst. So I would gladly take them at their word here. But is that where we want to be? Simply trusting that all political influencers with special access to a powerful administration will simply rise maneuver through the very real conflicts of interest? Are we to accept that building your brand on political access as perhaps a journalist would, but without any journalistic integrity or ethical saftey rails, won't end in prioritizing the gravy train over one's truth? Are we just going on vibes here? You can have it both ways. You can't pretend to be a journalist while ignoring journalistic ethics because you're just an influencers. A journalist wouldn't accept an all expense trip to the White House to speak with congressional staff about talking points. Though, an affiliate of the administration would. After the White House visit in may, I found myself asking, are these people social media stars or journalists? And it turns out the answer is not clear. Why use journalists when you can use influencers? Influencers are uncomplicated. They follow no established code of ethics. Most influencers make content without ever seeing a penny for their efforts. And the lucky few influencers who can make a living off this craft are in constant danger of it all collapsing, they are prisoner to the algorithm to our attention and admiration, and to whatever access they are granted.  Influencers have no constitutional obligation to report on the truth or be transparent about their methods and operation. Influencers can and will except free trips anywhere. That's kind of their whole thing.  The stage on which influencers perform it provided by state sanctioned, monopolistic social media companies who have a vested interest in keeping Congress people happy, and there isn't a platform operating on US soil that doesn't have some sort of back door for uncle Sam. Journalist report to independent news organizations. Those organizations do not answer to the government in anyway the government doesn't have influence and how many new shelves in article hits on any given day.  So what is the solution here? I don't think we're gonna convince political influencers to disclose their relationships, revenue, streams, and political access with their audiences. So then we flip it on its head.  I think there's one thing we can do that would have an immediate effect. If you are a political influencer and you have not taken any money, gifts, or access from Democrats or democrat affiliated groups, simply state that in your bio or your linktree. --- The question is, how does the White House view political influencers as? Here's a quote from the Biden campaign now wants to go viral  > Back in 2020, the Biden campaign really leaned heavily on influencers to get out your message. Does Biden HQ build on that influencer network? > > Absolutely. So, the DNC has been working to build this great influencer network with allies — an amplification network. We’ve been doing that work, too … We fully acknowledge that it’s not enough to just think about owned content, but you have to think about how you distribute it and who it’s being distributed to. So we have a Biden task force that is decidedly not part of Biden's campaign, but a part of the White House proper. And that task force views these influencers as allies and forgive me if I'm taking a leap but allies who receive privileged access and gifts are affiliates. So while it may be unfair to use the loaded term fed, surely we can use the term "government affiliate." And personally, I do not want to get my information from government affiliates. The reason why Biden had to create this task force in the first place is because people like me have decidedly opted not to follow official government accounts.  There is a separate Independent organization that manages Press access and credentialing called the White House correspondence association. If Erica was interacting with the White House in a official capacity as a journalist, the White House couldn't just kick her off the email list. --- Biden's exclusion of black and brown creators critical of his administration also place barriers between those of color and the more predominantly white probing creators. Biden also take them off the list I've seen associating with unsanctioned creators?  --- It's one thing is the white reaches out to influencers to talk about a specific public healthy issue Covid. It's another when they leverage access and gifts as a way to influence content about the administration itself. The problem is Biden wants to change mines without changing policy.  he wants to leverage Independent voices by buying them.  Looking back I'm appalled at some of the videos I'm watching with fresh eyes, how some were treated simply for questioning the ethics behind opinions for hire. Especially when the target is Black. Especially when I now know that these networks of professional propagandists are isolating creators of color disproportionately. The things we talk about on here are often subversive. The are anti-establishment. I feel deeply uncomfortable sharing this space with someone who has put themselves in a situation where they may have to say or do something out of desperation.