At 10:00 am on July 4, while many people in the US were preparing to pop some burgers on the grill and celebrate the birth of America, Shaun Maguire, the multi-millionaire general partner at Sequoia Capital, one of the most esteemed venture capital firms in Silicon Valley, was rage-tweeting.

"[Zohran] Mamdani comes from a culture that lies about everything," he posted. "It’s literally a virtue to lie if it advances his Islamist agenda. The West will learn this lesson the hard way."

Subscribe now

Maguire was alluding to a deeply misleading and inflammatory article in the New York Times that published hacked material from 2009 revealing that Mamdani had checked the “Asian” and “African American” boxes on his application to Columbia University, handwriting “Ugandan” to reflect his Ugandan‑born Indian heritage. The Times article relied primarily on Jordan Lasker, a race‑science proponent, as the source. Mamdani told the New York Times that he was simply trying to convey his complex identity, not mislead anyone or gain an improper advantage. Mamdani did not get accepted to Columbia.

Maguire lives in the Bay Area, but has tweeted incessantly about Mamdani since the progressive leader won the New York City Democratic mayoral primary last month. He has repeatedly falsely claimed that Mamdani, who is Muslim and has faced a tidal wave of Islamophobia since his win, is a radical Islamist. (Mamdani marched in NYC's Pride parade just last week, proudly waving a trans rights flag and has a close partnership with Brad Lander, New York City's Jewish comptroller, who endorsed him in the primary race.) Maguire also published a post on the Fourth of July, implying that "ending America" is a "religious goal" for Mamdani. "Mamdani is a new strain of Islamism, mutated to be more palatable for the Western mind," Maguire posted.

The fact that Maguire can make such extremely racist and Islamophobic comments publicly about a major American political figure shows how deeply anti-Muslim bigotry has become embedded in Silicon Valley culture. Silicon Valley billionaires are now openly embracing anti-Muslim hate as they pivot toward defense startups that profit from perpetual war and the genocide in Palestine. The US war machine is structurally dependent on Islamophobia to justify decades of military intervention and surveillance, and, as Silicon Valley becomes even more intertwined with the defense sector, extremists like Maguire will likely only obtain more power and influence.

Vocal Defender of Israel

Read more

Silicon Valley's leaders have gone to extraordinary lengths to show support for Donald Trump since he won the election last fall. On the day of Trump's inauguration, billionaire tech CEOs, including Elon Musk, Tim Cook, Sundar Pichai, Mark Zuckerberg, Jeff Bezos, and Sam Altman, watched just feet away as Trump was sworn in. Many rolled out Trump-friendly platform policies and showered Trump with millions of dollars by donating to his inaugural fund.

But now, 100 days in, tech leaders' unabashed support for Trump is blowing up in their faces. Their plan to cozy up to the president and receive favorable treatment has backfired, and the CEOs have been left reeling as they attempt to navigate the chaos the administration has wrought on their businesses.

Tesla’s stock has cratered. Zuckerberg is fighting an existential antitrust battle. Amazon and Apple are reeling from tariffs and supply chain disruptions, forced to pivot costly manufacturing operations out of China. Far from the deregulatory paradise they envisioned, tech titans now face a harsher business climate, bipartisan distrust, and a political minefield of their own making.

Subscribe now

It didn't have to be this way. Back in 2016, much of the public was horrified by Trump's victory. Silicon Valley execs attempted to navigate Trump's first term by playing both sides, but Democrats and the news media suddenly began to take a more skeptical look at the major tech companies that largely received a pass under Barack Obama. Suddenly, tech CEOs were receiving a tidal wave of critical reporting, and the techlash, a broad-based backlash toward Silicon Valley, emerged by the late 2010s.

This left many in Silicon Valley feeling salty. Rather than acknowledge their companies’ flaws and work to build more responsible platforms and businesses, tech CEOs began to veer right. This shift was accelerated by the start of the pandemic.

Trump’s promises of corporate tax cuts, deregulation, and an "America First" policy seemed appealing to Silicon Valley leaders who were desperate to maintain global dominance. It was a cynical calculation: ignore Trump's ugly rhetoric in exchange for market-friendly policies. What many underestimated, however, was how fundamentally unstable Trump is and his willingness to turn on literally any ally when politically convenient.

Musk’s Tesla Battered

Musk soon began openly supporting Trump and using his social media platform X to promote far-right ideology. He has been the most effusive in his praise of Trump since he took office, and, at a post-inauguration rally, Musk praised the president, stating, "It is thanks to you that the future of civilization is assured. On X, Musk celebrated Trump's return to power with the phrase "The Return of the King."

But though Musk, through his role at DOGE, has been able to gut many of the regulatory agencies that would hamstring or force oversight of his businesses, his ties to Trump have caused his net worth to plummet by billions.

Tesla’s stock, once the darling of Wall Street, has been battered. Trump’s tariffs on Chinese goods hit Tesla’s Chinese sales and supply chains hard. China was supposed to be Tesla’s golden goose; now it’s a geopolitical minefield. Tesla's Shanghai Gigafactory, once hailed as a triumph of international expansion, appears increasingly precarious. And Musk, once perceived as a brilliant and creative futurist, is now seen by many as unhinged and hyper-partisan.

This perception has hurt Tesla’s brand among key demographics, especially affluent liberals and younger consumers who once fueled the company’s rise. Tesla’s loss of goodwill among environmentally conscious consumers has opened the door for competitors like Rivian and Lucid Motors, who offer a cleaner, less politically toxic alternative.

Zuckerberg’s 180

Zuckerberg, who Trump once threatened to throw in prison for life, did a complete 180 after Trump was elected. He named Trump ally and UFC boss Dana White to Meta's board of directors and promoted Joel Kaplan, the company's most prominent Republican lobbyist, to be its new head of global affairs. Hoping to dodge regulatory scrutiny, Zuckerberg dined with Trump at Mar a Lago and reportedly promised to keep Facebook’s moderation policies friendlier to conservative voices.

None of it worked.

Meta now faces existential threats to its business as the Federal Trade Commission continues to pursue a major antitrust case against the company. The case could result in substantial fines or even a corporate breakup, undoing Meta's Instagram and WhatsApp acquisitions. Instead of securing a friendly regulatory environment, Zuckerberg helped catalyze a rare bipartisan consensus: Meta is too powerful and must be reined in.

Share

Had Zuckerberg taken a principled stand against Trump, he might have preserved more credibility with Democratic regulators and lawmakers, but now he has no allies left. To make matters worse, Trump's tariff announcements in April caused Meta's stock price to plummet by nearly 14%, erasing over $27 billion from Zuckerberg's net worth at the time.

Bezos on Receiving End of Trump’s Wrath

While Jeff Bezos donated to Trump's inauguration fund and has worked to shape the Washington Post into a more Trump-friendly media outlet, Trump's trade war with China has significantly affected Amazon's business. Amazon is heavily reliant on Chinese manufacturing and imports, and it has seen costs rise sharply due to tariffs. Third-party sellers, who are an essential pillar of Amazon’s business, have been hit hard, with many passing costs on to consumers.

Bezos personally received a call from Trump on Tuesday morning after it was reported that Amazon was considering showing the cost of tariffs right next to the product’s total listed price on its platform. Bezos apparently acquiesced because Trump told reporters on Tuesday following the call that “Jeff Bezos was very nice. He was terrific. He solved the problem very quickly. Good guy.” Meanwhile, Bezos's net worth has plummeted by $30 billion since January, according to Bloomberg's Billionaire Index, in part due to the stock market slump and economic blowback from tariffs.

Ready for an Even More Expensive iPhone?

Apple, too, has found itself in Trump's crosshairs. Trump has demanded that Apple make iPhones in America, a logistical impossibility given the global nature of Apple’s supply chain. While Trump exempted smartphones and some other electronics from his steepest tariffs, it’s unclear how long the reprieve will last. Trump promises “NOBODY is getting ‘off the hook.’” Tariffs on Chinese imports have forced Apple to rethink its entire manufacturing strategy and shift resources to build up production lines in India and Vietnam.

Share

This shift has been costly and complicated for the company. Meanwhile, the iPhone market share in China (Apple’s most profitable growth market) is shrinking as local competitors like Huawei and Xiaomi capitalize on anti-American sentiment.

Google, Microsoft, and OpenAI Hit, Too

While the CEOs of Google and Microsoft have taken a less overt pro-Trump stance, their businesses have been hit hard too.

Google, a top employer of H-1B visa holders, has faced significant challenges navigating Trump's immigration policies. The company has advised its H-1B employees to avoid international travel because they literally might not be allowed back into the US. These restrictions have significantly impacted Google's operations and harmed the company's ability to retain global talent. ​Microsoft is facing similar struggles.

Altman, who said that "Trump represents an unprecedented threat to America" back in 2016, pivoted to supporting the president this time around. In January, he visited the White House and praised Trump's $500 billion "Stargate" AI initiative. Shortly after, Altman tweeted, "watching [Trump] more carefully recently has really changed my perspective on him (i wish i had done more of my own thinking and definitely fell in the npc trap). I'm not going to agree with him on everything, but I think he will be incredible for the country in many ways!"

In the following months, however, OpenAI too began experiencing direct repercussions from Trump's immigration policies. Kai Chen, a Canadian AI researcher who contributed significantly to the development of GPT-4.5, was recently denied a US green card despite living and working in the country for over a decade. The issue was apparently due to a problem with paperwork filed two years ago; however, tensions have been exacerbated by the current political climate. Chen has since relocated to Canada, but OpenAI faces questions about its ability to retain top AI talent, many of whom are foreign nationals.

Share

It wasn't just the tech CEOs who pushed pro-Trump rhetoric, a slew of top venture capitalists and startup founders also embraced the MAGA movement, helping to usher in Trump's second term. VCs, including Peter Thiel, David Sacks, and Chamath Palihapitiya, leaned into right-wing politics, betting that a populist backlash against regulation would create new opportunities for disruptive startups.

Like the tech CEOs, their plans failed. Crypto faces an uncertain future under the SEC. Gig economy firms like Uber and DoorDash are facing labor reclassification battles. And startups relying on Chinese manufacturing or Asian capital are struggling to survive.

Silicon Valley’s pro-Trump pivot is a cautionary tale about trying to leverage fascism for personal gain. Tech's biggest leaders misjudged both the nature of Trump’s politics and the fragility of their own power. They are now besieged with troubles, and Trump's policies will undoubtedly leave lasting scars on their businesses for years.

Taylor Lorenz, author of the new Zeteo column, ‘Network Effect,’ is an acclaimed tech and online culture journalist. For more of Taylor's writing, subscribe to her Substack, User Mag.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect those of Zeteo.

On a call with investors in February, the billionaire CEO excitedly shouted, “We’re doin’ it!” with his arms outstretched. “And I’m sure you’re enjoying this as much as I am!” Surrounded by smiling sycophants, the T-shirted tech mogul continued: “We are crushing it… We are dedicating our company to the service of the West and the United States of America... [We are] here to disrupt and.. when it’s necessary to scare enemies and, on occasion, kill them.”

Elon Musk? Nope. Peter Thiel? Not quite.

As CEO of tech giant Palantir, which he co-founded with Thiel and others more than two decades ago, Alex Karp is part of a new breed of Silicon Valley billionaires seeking to integrate their businesses with America's military-industrial complex, while dismantling the government and championing deregulation of the economy. Though he's not yet as famous as his peers like Musk and Thiel, he's just as dangerous.

Subscribe now

The outlandish Karp, who looks much younger than this 57 years of age, whose unruly hair has its own Twitter account, and who reportedly keeps Tai Chi swords in his office, is the most influential billionaire many of you may never have heard of. The Palantir boss supported first Joe Biden’s and then Kamala Harris's presidential runs, but has become increasingly reactionary. Last year, he said that wokeness is a "pagan religion" and a "danger" to America and the Western way of life. He has been an ardent supporter of Israel's genocide in Gaza, which Palantir has profited from. At an event in March, he said, “I don’t believe that all cultures are equal." In February, Karp said that Musk’s DOGE is a "revolution" and that "some people are going to get their heads cut off."

Palantir, which launched over two decades ago with initial funding from the CIA's venture capital arm, is today a crucial partner to US defense and intelligence agencies. As Palantir grew, a bulk of its business came from the FBI, the NSA, and the CIA. Palantir works closely with the military on data analysis, surveillance, AI, and more. The tech company has been completely woven into the fabric of our national security operations.

Palantir has also played a crucial role in the slaughter of innocent Palestinians.

Last January, the company announced that it had secured a strategic partnership to "significantly aid" the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF). Palantir has reportedly created software to help generate "kill lists" for the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) and has been described as "the AI arms dealer of the 21st century." Last summer, Karp said that those protesting the genocide in Gaza are “an infection inside of our society."

But Karp doesn't just profit from killings abroad; he also seeks to leverage the Trump administration's authoritarian crackdowns on speech and immigration here in the US for Palantir's benefit. Palantir has leveraged its tech to target immigrant families for deportation and worked with ICE to identify and deport undocumented immigrants.

In Karps' view, according to the book that he recently co-authored titled The Technological Republic: Hard Power, Soft Belief, and the Future of the West, America is currently facing “a moment of reckoning." To survive, he argues, the country must assert its dominance through militarism. Karp believes that it's crucial America leads the charge in a global arms race, which will require the government to work hand in hand with the US tech industry and, conveniently, Palantir.

Share

Karp believes that we must develop next-generation weapons and AI systems in order to remain militarily superior against our adversaries. In a letter to shareholders published in February, Karp wrote that we are at the "beginning of the first act” of a “revolution that will play out over years and decades… the momentum we are seeing across sectors, both commercial and government, is unlike anything that has come before."

However, Karp is less concerned about America's national defense as he is with maintaining Western dominance. In his shareholder letter, Karp quotes political scientist Samuel P. Huntington, he of the "Clash of Civilizations" infamy.

Karp echoed Huntington's belligerent sentiments, writing, "As Samuel Huntington has written, the rise of the West was not made possible 'by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion . . . but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence… Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.'"

Karp wants to make Palantir central to the Trump administration's "organized violence" against minorities both domestically and abroad. As defense industry analyst William D. Hartung, recently noted, Karp and other billionaires in his ilk, like Palmer Luckey, founder of military tech firm Anduril, and Musk, with SpaceX, "are convinced that, at some future moment, by supplanting old-school corporate weapons makers like Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman, they will usher in a golden age of American global primacy grounded in ever better technology. They see themselves as superior beings who can save this country and the world, if only the government—and ultimately, democracy itself—would get out of their way."

Share

Of course, this disdain for the government does not apply to the billion-dollar contracts that federal agencies reward companies like Palantir with. Karp, like Musk, will happily bash the government publicly while working privately to reshape government structures and US military agendas in his favor. By embedding his technology within our defense and intelligence systems, Karp aims to ensure the lucrative contracts keep coming and Palantir remains indispensable to national security, potentially undermining all conventional governmental checks and balances.

Karp's hawkish and bigoted rhetoric, combined with his desire to seize total control over our military-industrial complex, poses a major threat to our democratic institutions. As Palantir continues to expand its influence within government sectors, and Karp grows his national and global profile, he is becoming yet another Silicon Valley tech bro seeking to prioritize his business interests over democracy and the public good.

Taylor Lorenz, author of the new Zeteo column, ‘Network Effect,’ is an acclaimed tech and online culture journalist. For more of Taylor's writing, subscribe to her Substack, User Mag.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect those of Zeteo.

Check out more from Zeteo:

Last month, at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), Megyn Kelly took the stage in front of thousands of people. "Have you heard about what's happening with the Blake Lively vs Justin Baldoni case?" she asked the crowd. "Are you obsessed with this case? There are millions of people who are obsessed with this case." Over the course of the next 20 minutes, Kelly spoke in detail about Lively vs. Baldoni.

She called Lively, who claims that Justin Baldoni, her co-star in the movie ‘It Ends With Us,’ sexually harassed her and created a hostile work environment, a "high maintenance diva bully brat." Kelly said that after Lively's claims of sexual harassment became public, "Blake Lively believed she'd be received like an Alyssa Milano or Ashley Judd #MeToo victim” but “is instead looking a lot more like Amber Heard.”

Subscribe now

Kelly is just one of a roster of conservative influencers dominating the Lively vs. Baldoni coverage. Right-wing creators, including Candace Owens, have been at the forefront of the case, while mainstream liberal creators follow in their footsteps, often laundering right-wing talking points to their progressive audiences.

Conservative influencers are not just covering the Lively vs Baldoni story more frequently than everyone else; they're covering it faster, in more detail, and providing the most compelling, up-to-the-minute storylines.

"It has brought in a new audience and changed my demographics," Candace Owens, the conservative commentator who has been making an aggressive effort to target women lately, told me. Owens said that she's seen a surge of liberals, who normally wouldn't claim to agree with her politics, tuning in for her pop culture coverage. "It has brought in people… who have never listened to my content because they feel so passionate about it and Justin Baldoni," she said.

Owens has relentlessly live-streamed herself discussing the case, posting about it on Instagram and X. She created an entire YouTube playlist on her channel documenting her coverage, which is approaching 25 million collective views. In a complaint filed by Lively's team with the court on Feb. 25, Lively’s attorneys cited Owens' coverage as deeply influential over public sentiment, noting that a slew of "online content creators" have spread "misleading accusations." The filing claims that Owens’ posts are setting the media narratives about the case. Owens celebrated the name check in a YouTube video, which amassed 1.6 million views.

As the writer Gary Baum at The Hollywood Reporter noted in January, “For those on the right, [Justin Baldoni represents] that most sympathetic of figures in contemporary American life: the canceled man. Meanwhile, Lively is a liberal who has received publicity for repeatedly donating to left-coded Indigenous causes and is perhaps best known for her close friendship with Taylor Swift, an enemy of President Donald Trump.” Most importantly, conservatives have recognized that the case, much like Johnny Depp’s crusade against Amber Heard, can be weaponized to dismantle support for the #MeToo movement, which conservatives have long sought to roll back.

When the Democrats lost again to Trump last fall, mainstream liberals all over the internet claimed that the party needed to do some major soul-searching. For a brief moment, they seemed to realize that their political movement was completely out of step with the culture. They held countless panels, forums, and strategy sessions that emphasized the urgent quest for Democrats to identify or cultivate their version(s) of "the left's Joe Rogan.” In other words, influential online figures who could speak authentically to a broad audience on cultural topics.

Subscribe now

Liberals spoke about the need to leverage pop culture and seemingly non-political topics as a bridge to engage the public in political ideas indirectly, thus enhancing Democratic appeal. Liberal pundit Chris Hayes went on Ezra Klein’s podcast to bemoan Democrats “losing the attention war, badly.” This realization prompted political action committees (PACs) and wealthy Democratic donors to shower mainstream liberal influencers with funding, promising greater cultural relevance and audience reach.

Five months later, the Lively vs. Baldoni coverage reveals what a spectacular failure their efforts have been. Fox News has published near-daily updates on the case, and conservative influencers are owning the story, skyrocketing their audience numbers and transforming the public narrative on #MeToo, while mainstream liberals either parrot Candace Owens’ talking points or refuse to acknowledge the case at all.

Phil DeFranco, the number one news influencer in America according to Pew Research, who is watched by a large liberal audience, has only covered the case once on his channel in a segment he described as a "surface level normie breakdown." In the segment, he both-sides Lively's harassment claims and proceeds to highlight commentary from an extreme far right influencer who has terrorized Me Too victims and pushed people to follow creators defending Harvey Weinstein. Practically all other liberal news pundits have simply ignored the story.

If you're on social media platforms, especially if you're a woman or under the age of 40, content about Lively vs. Baldoni has likely become inescapable. TikTok, YouTube, and Instagram videos about the case are amassing millions of views, Google searches have skyrocketed, and, as Megyn Kelly said on stage, all of America seems to be obsessed with the controversy.

Right-wing creators have become expert at tapping into online trends and cultural conversations, and immediately recognized the opportunity. Last fall, after Baldoni's smear campaign against Lively was revealed in the New York Times, conservative influencers sprung to action. They flooded the zone with exhaustive coverage aimed at discrediting Lively.

They have used the case to dismantle public support for #MeToo, especially among liberal women. So far, it's working. Recently, two co-founders of Betches, a liberal women's media company that has done work with the DNC, repeated Owens' exact framing of the case on Instagram, attacking Lively to their audience of progressive women followers. They lambasted the New York Times for their coverage and called Lively a “narcissistic egomaniac.”

"It’s a vindication for me," Owens told me. "I'm not kidding when I say that I was the first public person in the political sphere where, on the day that #MeToo started trending, I made statements against it."

Subscribe now

"I have not moved my position on Me Too at all," she added, "I've been consistent, but people weren't ready to hear it."

Brett Cooper, a conservative influencer who recently left right-wing media outlet The Daily Wire to go independent, launched her YouTube channel with content about Lively vs Baldoni. In the second episode of her new podcast, titled "How Blake Lively Ended Her Own Career," Cooper rails against Lively and claims that Ryan Reynolds is set to lose his entire fortune and career because of his wife's "ego."

"This is just yet another example of women weaponizing Me Too for their own gain," Cooper says. Talking directly to Blake, she adds, "You thought the feminists would just rally behind you and that we were still in 2015 and that we would believe all women… but that was obviously very misguided.” The video has 3.4 million views. Top comments compare Lively to Amber Heard, calling her "entitled" and "insufferable." "I am not someone who ever paid attention to pop culture until I found your videos," one user commented. "Now I am so much more informed."

One of the next videos on Cooper’s channel is titled "It’s Time to Abolish the Department of Education." "Young people, especially young women might be interested [in watching my channel] because of a celebrity thing, then will stick around for something else," Cooper told me. "The video on the Department of Education is just as important, it might just be less flashy."

Cooper said that leaning into pop culture coverage has helped shift the public’s perception of her. "I've seen a lot of comments like, I don't usually listen to conservatives, but you're very palatable and you've changed my mind about what conservatives are and you open my eyes and a lot of things," she said.

Subscribe now

Cooper added that the Lively vs Baldoni case reveals a broader generational shift in conservative media. "A lot of it is this new breed of younger people in right wing media," she said. She cited Ben Shapiro's viral movie reviews of ‘Wicked’ and ‘Barbie,’ as examples of how adept conservative commentators are at discussing Hollywood.

"The older generation of conservatives," she said, "they looked down on art, they looked down on Hollywood. They felt like it was not important. They looked at celebrities as something that should be shunned, like a cancer on society or whatever. I don't think most of us these days, the Bens, the Candaces, the Amirs, we don't think that way. We're very engaged in culture and in art. I was an actor. I'm a bona fide theater kid. As a young person who is on social media, I've engaged with all of these stories and I understand they're relevance in a way that probably older generations of conservatives didn't. I'm watching these videos with you. I'm watching these insane celebrity things unfold. I'm watching the same crappy movies that you are, and we should talk about it, because this is real life."

Though Cooper said she doesn't think of her pop culture content as a "gateway drug" to conservatism, she just covers what she's interested in, it's undeniable that her and other right wing creators' coverage has that effect. Conservative content creators’ ability to seize cultural moments for audience growth and redirect the discourse on topics like the Depp vs. Heard case or Lively vs. Baldoni has resulted in more and more liberal women adopting right-wing ideology surrounding women's rights.

"Pop up culture and celebrity news discourse reveals so much about what we as a society will accept or not," said Dilly Maz, a pop culture commentator on TikTok. "The standards that we hold celebrities to says a lot about what standards we have as a society. When you start to see these types of shifts in these spaces, it's really important to pay attention to what that reveals about a broader cultural shift."

While more creators on the right tap into the Lively vs. Baldoni discourse, millions more liberals are falling into the right-wing media pipeline. Ophie Dokie, a feminist YouTuber, said that it doesn't matter if many of the women who have gone down the right-wing rabbit hole still identify as liberal, because they've already begun adopting a fundamentally right-wing ideology towards women.

Share

"They think that they're surprised that they agree with Candace Owens," Ophie said, "but what they actually need to be surprised by is that Candace Owens picked out the things that they believe for them."

As the right amasses more power and online attention, the left-wing creator ecosystem’s complete detachment from cultural moments reveals liberals' total incapacity to engage and mobilize people around influential narratives.

"There's no coverage of Blake and Baldoni from anyone approaching this with a progressive, critical lens," said Caroline Kwan, a progressive Twitch streamer. "Anyone on the left who's formed an opinion on this, most likely they are getting their opinion from whatever is dominating online, which is conservatives."

Brendan Gahan, a creator marketing strategist and founder of Creator Authority, an influencer marketing agency, said that the Lively vs Baldoni situation shows yet again how completely out of touch Democrats are with culture and the dynamics of online attention.

"I think there's a lack of understanding of culture and a lack of willingness to hear out a lot of aspects of culture," he said. "They don't take these things seriously. They don't see it as political; they think it's celebrity gossip."

Kwan said that Democrat influencers' dismissal of these massive, high-profile attacks on famous women who have spoken out about sexual assault or workplace harassment as "celebrity gossip" is deeply out of touch.

Subscribe now

"Amber Heard had a chilling effect on victims of abuse," she said. "Men who beat their girlfriends refer to them as Amber Heard. What we've seen with Justin Baldoni is that now, every time something like this happens, the playbook gets more insidious. [The right] gets better at fighting this battle online and winning in the court of public opinion. Blake lively is not the first, nor will she be the last."

"This is not about protecting rich white celebrity women," she added, "this is about society at large and how misogyny is so deeply ingrained in our culture, both online and offline."

Owens, meanwhile, is leveraging the runaway success of her anti-Blake Lively crusade to drive millions of eyeballs to her two latest series, a deep dive investigation claiming that the first lady of France is secretly a biological man, and a series vindicating Harvey Weinstein. Owens claims that Weinstein, like Baldoni and Depp, is a victim of the justice system and that the #MeToo movement has gone too far.

She also doesn't plan to let up on her Lively coverage. "I'm totally invested," she said. "I wake up, and I check to see what's been filed. I think it's really important that goodness wins. I will keep covering this topic as long as there's something to cover." Owens said that more people across the political spectrum are waking up and seeing her view of the world.

"They're watching my content," she said. "They're watching the Blake Lively [videos]. And they're staying on."

This essay was originally published on User Magazine, an independent outlet on Substack founded by Taylor Lorenz, the acclaimed tech and online culture journalist who is also the author of the new Zeteo column, ‘Network Effect.’

Subscribe to Zeteo now to make sure you get future ‘Network Effect’ editions in your inbox. And subscribe to User Mag for more of Taylor’s writing.

Check out more from Taylor and other Zeteo contributors:

I am delighted to have Taylor Lorenz, the acclaimed tech and culture journalist who left the Washington Post last year and is now editor of User Mag, joining Zeteo as a regular contributor. Her first ‘Network Effect’ column, below, is one you won't want to miss and won't find anywhere else. Become a paid subscriber to Zeteo now and support our independent journalism.

- Mehdi

On Tuesday afternoon, as Elon Musk met with President Donald Trump in the Oval Office, his 4-year-old son, X Æ known as “X,” scrambled around at his knees. Trump introduced the child, saying, “This is X, and he’s a great guy. High IQ.” X proceeded to whisper inaudible phrases, pick his nose, and zone out.

Shortly after the appearance, X's mother, Claire Elise Boucher, known as Grimes, responded in frustration. "He should not be in public like this," she tweeted. Despite Boucher's protests, the story was quickly packaged across social media as a heartfelt "father-son moment."

"Say what you like about Elon Musk but as a dad I think there is something rather wonderful about him speaking in the Oval Office with his son on his shoulders," one X user with over 63,000 followers tweeted.

"Father’s Love ❤️ doesn’t have to be judged by money," another user tweeted alongside a photo of X on Musk's shoulders. "Elon Musk is a great father."

Subscribe now

The Oval Office incident was just Musk's latest attempt to rebrand himself from a ruthless, calculating billionaire to a down-home family man. Musk has done this by mimicking the behavior and tactics of parenting influencers, who leverage their children to build and shape their public image and foster a deeper loyalty from their audience. "Kids change the way that your brand is seen," said Fortesa Latifi, author of the forthcoming book, Like, Follow, Subscribe, about the family influencing industry.

“Musk, like any influencer, knows the power of parasocial relationships," said Brendan Gahan, co-founder of Creator Authority, an influencer marketing agency. "But so far, he's predominantly cultivated that among a young male audience. Using his son provides a platform to build those parasocial relationships with a much wider demographic of older people and women."

Over the past year, Musk's son X has been a fixture alongside the billionaire. Musk brought X to Twitter’s San Francisco offices after closing his $44 billion deal to buy the company. His son has accompanied his father to meetings on Capitol Hill, summits with world leaders, tours of Tesla factories, and the Super Bowl. On election night, Musk carried X into Mar-a-Lago with the toddler perched on his shoulders, and his son was even included in the Trump family's victory photo. It's hard to find a recent public appearance by Musk that his son has not attended.

Despite Boucher's repeated insistence that X not be forced into the public eye, Musk has sought to leverage their son to rebrand himself as the ultimate father and family man. He is doing what many parenting influencers do: using their children to soften their public image, appeal to a right-wing audience, and shield themselves from criticism.

Read more