vox--2020-03-05--Hand sanitizer was one of the most sought-after products on the market, even before the coronavirus

Hand sanitizer was one of the most sought-after products on the market, even before the coronavirus outbreak

Everyone wants a bottle of hand sanitizer .
Unfortunately , it ’ s almost impossible to buy one .
Covid-19 fears have turned the once unremarkable , goopy product into something of a Holy Grail .
Local Walmarts and pharmacies are sold out .
Google searches have skyrocketed .
On Amazon , major brand names like Purell and Germ-X are either out of stock or available at ridiculously inflated prices .
Stores are rationing product as panicked customers try to stock up .
According to market researchers at Adobe Analytics , demand for hand sanitizer has gone up 1,400 percent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , hand sanitizer is so scarce that “ anti-coronavirus bouquets ” with mini bottles of disinfectant nestled between red roses were a coveted Valentine ’ s Day gift .
The South Korean government instituted penalties up to $ 42,000 or two years in prison for anyone found hoarding hand sanitizer .
Shortages in Thailand spurred health authorities to encourage citizens to make their own sanitizer .
Demand for hand sanitizer has gone up 1,400 percent since January In mid-February , the FBI preemptively ordered $ 40,000 worth of hand sanitizer and face masks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ US .
In 2019 , before the Covid-19 outbreak that began in Wuhan , China — also known as coronavirus — the global hand sanitizer market was projected to be worth over $ 5.5 billion by 2024 .
Now hand sanitizer has become one of the most sought-after products on the planet .
But hand sanitizer is not a cure-all .
In January , the US Food and Drug Administration ( FDA ) sent Purell ’ s parent company Gojo Industries a warning letter to demand they stop making unproven claims that Purell @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the flu .
Only products approved as pharmaceutical drugs can legally make those sorts of claims , not over-the-counter topical anesthetics .
However , marketing semantics aside , the Centers for Disease Control ( CDC ) does recommend using hand sanitizer as a way to avoid getting sick .
According to the CDC , the most effective sanitizers are alcohol-based with at least 60 percent alcohol content .
They work by dissolving microbes ’ protective outer layer , which kills them .
Hand sanitizer isn ’ t fully effective unless you use it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The CDC says users should apply the amount indicated by a product ’ s directions to one palm then rub it all over the surfaces of both hands until they ’ re dry .
If you wipe sanitizer off your hands , it won ’ t be fully effective and may allow some bacteria to escape and potentially mutate .
Hand sanitizer ’ s rise comes on the tail of millennials supposedly killing bar soap , which many apparently consider disgusting and full of germs .
Hand sanitizer isn ’ t fully @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which many people do not This is a misconception : For anyone other than medical practitioners moving quickly between patients , good ol ’ soap and water ( even bar soap ! )
is still the best way to decontaminate your hands by scrubbing for at least 20 seconds .
This is because hand sanitizer doesn ’ t remove dirt , grease , some chemicals , and several types of germs , including cryptosporidium , norovirus , and Clostridium difficile .
While the Covid-19 virus undeniably boosted sales , hand sanitizer has been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ years , and it would be a mistake to attribute that newfound popularity to purely utilitarian impulses .
Like the ugly-duckling-turned-prom-queen in a ’ 90s teen movie , hand sanitizer has transformed from an astringent-smelling disinfectant into a product people are “ hyperenthusiastic ” about .
Against all odds , it ’ s now actually kind of cool .
Fashionistas clutched bottles at 2020 London Fashion Week .
A lavender-scented sanitizing spray went viral on TikTok , clocking over 3.4 million views .
Indie hand sanitizer brands count tens of thousands of followers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ far cry from hand sanitizer ’ s humble beginnings in Ohio , where Purell was invented in 1988 by family-owned soap company Gojo .
The product was a money loser for over a decade because no one quite knew what to do with it .
It wasn ’ t until the early 2000s that Purell was the first hand sanitizer to make it big .
In 2002 , the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention ( CDC ) revised hand hygiene guidelines to recommend alcohol-based sanitizers to health care providers as the best @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
This led to Purell becoming a staple in medical settings and restaurants .
While the private company doesn ’ t release its financial data , in 2016 Adweek pegged Purell sales at approximately $ 266 million per year .
Staid industry big shots like Purell and Germ-X still dominate the market , but a new breed of sanitizer promises more than bacteria-free palms .
They come in a rainbow of colors , smell delightful , and are backed by influencers .
Many are vegan ( as is Purell , at least ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ care benefits .
Environmentally-friendly and organic ingredients are set to go from niche to mainstream over the next few years .
“ One trend is organic alcohol that leaves no stickiness , ” reads Goldstein Research ’ s global market analysis report , listing claims of some of these products .
The report describes a sanitizer from EO made with “ sugar cane ethanol , which is a natural disinfectant that does no harm when absorbed into skin or our ecosystem and is 99.9 % effective against most common germs.
” These products @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unpleasant skin conditions sometimes caused by sanitizer use , such as contact dermatitis .
Touchland , the sanitizer spray with “ skin-care grade formulas ” that went viral on TikTok in early February ( set to a remix of TLC ’ s “ No Scrubs , ” no less ) , is a hit on Instagram with over 76,500 followers .
Beauty influencers post styled flat lays and shelfies of Touchland sanitizers in the company of brands like La Mer , Drunk Elephant , Glossier , and Kylie Cosmetics .
( Touchland currently @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) Khloe Kardashian is a fan of the vegan , cruelty-free Olika Birdie sanitizer , known to show hers off on Snapchat .
On YouTube , there ’ s an entire category of haul video dedicated to Bath & Body Works mini Pocketbac sanitizers , which received a packaging makeover in 2015 and are sold in an array of cutesy scents like strawberry pound cake and “ unicorn petals.
” It ’ s not all glamorous influencers and sparkling clean hands .
There ’ s grave concern in the medical community about the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t affected by modern medicines .
The good news is , unlike antibiotics and antiseptics , alcohol-based sanitizer does not contribute to the spread of antibiotic-resistant bacteria .
Alcohol works in an entirely different fashion than antibiotics do .
However , there are other concerns .
A 2018 study found that certain types of infections actually increased after the widespread installation of hand sanitizer stations in hospitals , suggesting germs may adapt to alcohol .
Of particular concern are enterococcal bacteria , a leading cause of hospital-acquired infections including sepsis ( a deadly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ re washing your hands less because [ of ] hand sanitizer … you can become a vehicle for alcohol-resistant organisms ” “ If you ’ re washing your hands less because that alcohol-based hand sanitizer makes you feel confident that your hands are clean … you can become a vehicle for alcohol-resistant organisms , ” Lance Price , founding director of George Washington University ’ s Antibiotic Resistance Center , said in a 2018 NPR interview .
If you don ’ t use enough product for long enough , some bacteria will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you have suboptimal contact times with the full-strength product you ’ re going to risk some breakthrough , or bacteria persisting , ” said Tim Stinear , a molecular microbiologist who was a co-author of the 2018 study , in a release .
“ The ones that survive the new environment better then go on to thrive.
” The 2018 study , by the Peter Doherty Institute for Infection and Immunity and Austin Health , found some germs are “ increasingly tolerant to the alcohols in widely used hospital disinfectants such as hand @ @ @ @ @ @ @ strains that emerged post-2010 were 10 times more tolerant of alcohol-based sanitizers than older strains .
Some alcohol-resistant bacteria strains were also found to be resistant to antibiotics .
This doesn ’ t mean we should stop using hand sanitizer , but it does mean we shouldn ’ t solely rely on hand sanitizer .
For the average consumer , this translates to still washing hands vigorously and often .
For hospitals , it means using additional disinfecting chemicals like chlorine .
Whimsical kitty-mermaid holders and scintillating scents like black cherry merlot shouldn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s inherently medical nature and the importance of correct usage .
We don ’ t want to risk finding ourselves in a dystopian medical thriller where even the most Instagrammable , gluten-free sanitizer won ’ t be able to save us .
Sign up for The Goods newsletter .
Twice a week , we ’ ll send you the best Goods stories exploring what we buy , why we buy it , and why it matters .

Editor’s note, March 25: This story was last updated on March 5. For our recent coverage of the pandemic, visit our guide to coronavirus.
Everyone wants a bottle of hand sanitizer. Unfortunately, it’s almost impossible to buy one. Covid-19 fears have turned the once unremarkable, goopy product into something of a Holy Grail.
Local Walmarts and pharmacies are sold out. Google searches have skyrocketed. On Amazon, major brand names like Purell and Germ-X are either out of stock or available at ridiculously inflated prices. Stores are rationing product as panicked customers try to stock up. According to market researchers at Adobe Analytics, demand for hand sanitizer has gone up 1,400 percent from December to January.
In Asia, hand sanitizer is so scarce that “anti-coronavirus bouquets” with mini bottles of disinfectant nestled between red roses were a coveted Valentine’s Day gift. The South Korean government instituted penalties up to $42,000 or two years in prison for anyone found hoarding hand sanitizer. Shortages in Thailand spurred health authorities to encourage citizens to make their own sanitizer.
Demand for hand sanitizer has gone up 1,400 percent
In mid-February, the FBI preemptively ordered $40,000 worth of hand sanitizer and face masks in case of an outbreak in the US.
In 2019, before the Covid-19 outbreak that began in Wuhan, China — Covid-19 is the disease caused by the coronavirus — the global hand sanitizer market was projected to be worth over $5.5 billion by 2024. Now hand sanitizer has become one of the most sought-after products on the planet.
But hand sanitizer is not a cure-all. In January, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) sent Purell’s parent company Gojo Industries a warning letter to demand they stop making unproven claims that Purell can eliminate Ebola, MRSA, or the flu. Only products approved as pharmaceutical drugs can legally make those sorts of claims, not over-the-counter topical anesthetics. However, marketing semantics aside, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) does recommend using hand sanitizer as a way to avoid getting sick.
According to the CDC, the most effective sanitizers are alcohol-based with at least 60 percent alcohol content. They work by dissolving microbes’ protective outer layer, which kills them.
Hand sanitizer isn’t fully effective unless you use it properly, which many people do not. The CDC says users should apply the amount indicated by a product’s directions to one palm then rub it all over the surfaces of both hands until they’re dry. If you wipe sanitizer off your hands, it won’t be fully effective and may allow some bacteria to escape and potentially mutate.
Hand sanitizer’s rise comes on the tail of millennials supposedly killing bar soap, which many apparently consider disgusting and full of germs.
Hand sanitizer isn’t fully effective unless you use it properly, which many people do not
This is a misconception: For anyone other than medical practitioners moving quickly between patients, good ol’ soap and water (even bar soap!) is still the best way to decontaminate your hands by scrubbing for at least 20 seconds. This is because hand sanitizer doesn’t remove dirt, grease, some chemicals, and several types of germs, including cryptosporidium, norovirus, and Clostridium difficile.
While the Covid-19 virus undeniably boosted sales, hand sanitizer has been on the rise for the last few years, and it would be a mistake to attribute that newfound popularity to purely utilitarian impulses. Like the ugly-duckling-turned-prom-queen in a ’90s teen movie, hand sanitizer has transformed from an astringent-smelling disinfectant into a product people are “hyperenthusiastic” about. Against all odds, it’s now actually kind of cool.
Fashionistas clutched bottles at 2020 London Fashion Week. A lavender-scented sanitizing spray went viral on TikTok, clocking over 3.4 million views. Indie hand sanitizer brands count tens of thousands of followers on Instagram.
It’s a far cry from hand sanitizer’s humble beginnings in Ohio, where Purell was invented in 1988 by family-owned soap company Gojo. The product was a money loser for over a decade because no one quite knew what to do with it. It wasn’t until the early 2000s that Purell was the first hand sanitizer to make it big.
In 2002, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) revised hand hygiene guidelines to recommend alcohol-based sanitizers to health care providers as the best method for decontaminating hands in many circumstances. This led to Purell becoming a staple in medical settings and restaurants. While the private company doesn’t release its financial data, in 2016 Adweek pegged Purell sales at approximately $266 million per year.
Staid industry big shots like Purell and Germ-X still dominate the market, but a new breed of sanitizer promises more than bacteria-free palms. They come in a rainbow of colors, smell delightful, and are backed by influencers. Many are vegan (as is Purell, at least), cruelty-free, and boast additional skin care benefits.
Environmentally-friendly and organic ingredients are set to go from niche to mainstream over the next few years. “One trend is organic alcohol that leaves no stickiness,” reads Goldstein Research’s global market analysis report, listing claims of some of these products. The report describes a sanitizer from EO made with “sugar cane ethanol, which is a natural disinfectant that does no harm when absorbed into skin or our ecosystem and is 99.9% effective against most common germs.” These products also aim to reduce the risk of unpleasant skin conditions sometimes caused by sanitizer use, such as contact dermatitis.
Touchland, the sanitizer spray with “skin-care grade formulas” that went viral on TikTok in early February (set to a remix of TLC’s “No Scrubs,” no less), is a hit on Instagram with over 76,500 followers. Beauty influencers post styled flat lays and shelfies of Touchland sanitizers in the company of brands like La Mer, Drunk Elephant, Glossier, and Kylie Cosmetics. (Touchland currently appears to be sold out online.)
Khloe Kardashian is a fan of the vegan, cruelty-free Olika Birdie sanitizer, known to show hers off on Snapchat. On YouTube, there’s an entire category of haul video dedicated to Bath & Body Works mini Pocketbac sanitizers, which received a packaging makeover in 2015 and are sold in an array of cutesy scents like strawberry pound cake and “unicorn petals.”
It’s not all glamorous influencers and sparkling clean hands. There’s grave concern in the medical community about the rise of drug-resistant superbugs that aren’t affected by modern medicines. The good news is, unlike antibiotics and antiseptics, alcohol-based sanitizer does not contribute to the spread of antibiotic-resistant bacteria. Alcohol works in an entirely different fashion than antibiotics do. However, there are other concerns.
A 2018 study found that certain types of infections actually increased after the widespread installation of hand sanitizer stations in hospitals, suggesting germs may adapt to alcohol. Of particular concern are enterococcal bacteria, a leading cause of hospital-acquired infections including sepsis (a deadly blood infection).
“If you’re washing your hands less because [of] hand sanitizer … you can become a vehicle for alcohol-resistant organisms”
“If you’re washing your hands less because that alcohol-based hand sanitizer makes you feel confident that your hands are clean … you can become a vehicle for alcohol-resistant organisms,” Lance Price, founding director of George Washington University’s Antibiotic Resistance Center, said in a 2018 NPR interview.
If you don’t use enough product for long enough, some bacteria will survive and grow stronger. “Anywhere you have suboptimal contact times with the full-strength product you’re going to risk some breakthrough, or bacteria persisting,” said Tim Stinear, a molecular microbiologist who was a co-author of the 2018 study, in a release. “The ones that survive the new environment better then go on to thrive.”
The 2018 study, by the Peter Doherty Institute for Infection and Immunity and Austin Health, found some germs are “increasingly tolerant to the alcohols in widely used hospital disinfectants such as hand rub solutions.” Researchers found Enterococcus faecium strains that emerged post-2010 were 10 times more tolerant of alcohol-based sanitizers than older strains. Some alcohol-resistant bacteria strains were also found to be resistant to antibiotics.
This doesn’t mean we should stop using hand sanitizer, but it does mean we shouldn’t solely rely on hand sanitizer. For the average consumer, this translates to still washing hands vigorously and often. For hospitals, it means using additional disinfecting chemicals like chlorine.
Whimsical kitty-mermaid holders and scintillating scents like black cherry merlot shouldn’t blind us to hand sanitizer’s inherently medical nature and the importance of correct usage. We don’t want to risk finding ourselves in a dystopian medical thriller where even the most Instagrammable, gluten-free sanitizer won’t be able to save us.
Sign up for The Goods newsletter. Twice a week, we’ll send you the best Goods stories exploring what we buy, why we buy it, and why it matters.


vox--2020-03-05--Vox’s guide to the 2020 presidential candidates

The 2020 presidential race is underway , and a slew of Democrats hoped for a shot at unseating President Donald @ @ @ @ @ Vice President Joe Biden and Sen. Bernie Sanders are the last major candidates left standing @ @ @ @ @ and Super Tuesday primaries have ended , the remaining candidates are preparing to wage a @ @ @ @ @ of the 2020 primary calendar .
Here , you ’ ll find everything you need @ @ @ @ @ Democratic primary : who the candidates are , the key dates for debates and primaries @ @ @ @ @ if you want to learn more about the candidates ’ policy positions , check out @ @ @ @ @ here .

Cookie banner
We use cookies and other tracking technologies to improve your browsing experience on our site, show personalized content and targeted ads, analyze site traffic, and understand where our audiences come from. To learn more or opt-out, read our Cookie Policy. Please also read our Privacy Notice and Terms of Use, which became effective December 20, 2019.
By choosing I Accept, you consent to our use of cookies and other tracking technologies.


vox--2020-03-05--Woody Allen got a book deal. Staff at his new publisher have walked out in protest.

Employees of the publisher Hachette Book Group are staging a walkout in protest of the company ’ s recently announced acquisition of Woody Allen ’ s forthcoming memoir , Publishers Weekly reports .
In a statement posted to Twitter , employees said , “ We stand in solidarity with Ronan Farrow , Dylan Farrow , and survivors of sexual abuse.
” The message refers to Allen ’ s adopted daughter Dylan Farrow , who says Allen molested her when she was 7 years old , and his son Ronan Farrow , who last year published a book about sexual predators @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Supporters of the walkout are gathering on social media under the hashtags # HachetteWalkout , # LittleBrownWalkout , and # GrandCentralWalkout .
Hachette announced earlier this week that its imprint Grand Central Publishing would be putting out Allen ’ s memoir Apropos of Nothing on April 7 .
The news sparked immediate and high-profile backlash : Allen has been accused by Dylan Farrow of molesting her , which in our post-Me Too era has often been understood to mean that Allen is now untouchable .
In 2018 , a number of actors @ @ @ @ @ @ @ movies made public apologies for ever having worked with him .
Amazon tried to wriggle out of its contract with him .
Hachette ’ s announcement was especially controversial because one of the highest-profile books it put out in 2019 was Ronan Farrow ’ s Catch and Kill .
Published by the Hachette imprint Little , Brown , and Company , Farrow ’ s book chronicles his investigation of Harvey Weinstein and Weinstein ’ s history of sexual assault and rape .
Farrow is Allen ’ s son , and he has been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Dylan Farrow and his disavowal of his father .
Soon after Hachette ’ s announcement , Farrow dropped the company as his publisher .
In a public statement posted to Twitter , he condemned Hachette ’ s decision , saying , “ It ’ s wildly unprofessional in multiple obvious directions for Hachette to behave this way .
But it also shows a lack of ethics and compassion for victims of sexual abuse , regardless of any personal connection or breach of trust here.
” In a private email to Hachette obtained by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ even more scathing .
“ As you and I worked on Catch and Kill … in part about the damage Woody Allen did to my family … you were secretly planning to publish a book by the person who committed those acts of sexual abuse , ” Farrow wrote .
He concluded , “ Obviously I can ’ t in good conscience work with you any more .
Imagine this were your sister.
” Dylan Farrow also condemned the announcement , saying , “ Hachette ’ s publishing of Woody Allen ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and an utter betrayal of my brother whose brave reporting , capitalized on by Hachette , gave voice to numerous survivors of sexual assault by powerful men.
” Both Ronan and Dylan Farrow noted that Hachette had not fact-checked Allen ’ s memoir .
That ’ s a common practice in book publishing , which generally places the burden of accuracy on the author .
But the practice has led to multiple scandals in high-profile releases over the past few years , most recently when Jill Lepore ’ s book was found to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Dylan Farrow pointed out , her own claims have been subject to extensive journalistic fact-checking .
Since Tuesday , when Hachette announced its plans to publish Allen ’ s memoir , employees from both Little , Brown and Grand Central have repeatedly attempted to speak to Hachette ’ s human resources department about the memoir .
On Thursday , the company held two town halls in which staff could air their concerns — and by 2 pm , shortly after the second town hall meeting , plans to walk out had coalesced .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , including both junior staff members and senior , director , and executive-level staff , had left the company ’ s offices .
The walkout affects Hachette ’ s office locations in both New York and Boston .
In an industry as notoriously hierarchical and slow to evolve as publishing is , that ’ s a risky decision , with few if any precedents to guide protesters .
Allen has reportedly been shopping a proposal for his memoir to publishers for years .
The New York Times reported that in 2003 , he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 3 million , but at the last minute decided to hold out for more money .
And in 2019 , as Allen ’ s reputation faltered in the wake of the Me Too movement , multiple publishers reported that an agent representing Allen had reached out to them with a memoir proposal to no avail .
In 2019 , the narrative was that publishers just weren ’ t interested and that a post-Me Too Allen was a liability for any company .
But the Guardian reports that Hachette quietly acquired Allen ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ around the same time that other publishers were declaring the memoir dead on arrival .
Hachette kept the deal under wraps until this month .
In an emailed statement to Vox , Hachette Book Group CEO Michael Pietsch said , “ We respect and understand the perspective of our employees who have decided to express their concern over the publication of this book .
We will engage our staff in a fuller discussion about this at the earliest opportunity .
”

Employees of the publisher Hachette Book Group are staging a walkout in protest of the company’s recently announced acquisition of Woody Allen’s forthcoming memoir, Publishers Weekly reports.
In a statement posted to Twitter, employees said, “We stand in solidarity with Ronan Farrow, Dylan Farrow, and survivors of sexual abuse.” The message refers to Allen’s adopted daughter Dylan Farrow, who says Allen molested her when she was 7 years old, and his son Ronan Farrow, who last year published a book about sexual predators, Catch and Kill, with Hachette. Supporters of the walkout are gathering on social media under the hashtags #HachetteWalkout, #LittleBrownWalkout, and #GrandCentralWalkout.
Hachette announced earlier this week that its imprint Grand Central Publishing would be putting out Allen’s memoir Apropos of Nothing on April 7. The news sparked immediate and high-profile backlash: Allen has been accused by Dylan Farrow of molesting her, which in our post-Me Too era has often been understood to mean that Allen is now untouchable. In 2018, a number of actors who have appeared in Allen’s movies made public apologies for ever having worked with him. Amazon tried to wriggle out of its contract with him.
The #littlebrownwalkout marks a real and important shift in publishing. The next generations will not stand for this utter lack of integrity. Proud too of Grand Central employees who are adamantly against this book deal. pic.twitter.com/luB3iSULPw — Kiele Raymond (@kieleraymond) March 5, 2020
Hachette’s announcement was especially controversial because one of the highest-profile books it put out in 2019 was Ronan Farrow’s Catch and Kill. Published by the Hachette imprint Little, Brown, and Company, Farrow’s book chronicles his investigation of Harvey Weinstein and Weinstein’s history of sexual assault and rape. Farrow is Allen’s son, and he has been public about his support for his sister Dylan Farrow and his disavowal of his father.
Soon after Hachette’s announcement, Farrow dropped the company as his publisher. In a public statement posted to Twitter, he condemned Hachette’s decision, saying, “It’s wildly unprofessional in multiple obvious directions for Hachette to behave this way. But it also shows a lack of ethics and compassion for victims of sexual abuse, regardless of any personal connection or breach of trust here.”
Hey, just wanted to share my thoughts on some recent news: pic.twitter.com/ovPczgx8pB — Ronan Farrow (@RonanFarrow) March 4, 2020
In a private email to Hachette obtained by the New York Times, Farrow was even more scathing. “As you and I worked on Catch and Kill … in part about the damage Woody Allen did to my family … you were secretly planning to publish a book by the person who committed those acts of sexual abuse,” Farrow wrote. He concluded, “Obviously I can’t in good conscience work with you any more. Imagine this were your sister.”
Dylan Farrow also condemned the announcement, saying, “Hachette’s publishing of Woody Allen’s memoir is deeply unsettling to me personally and an utter betrayal of my brother whose brave reporting, capitalized on by Hachette, gave voice to numerous survivors of sexual assault by powerful men.”
Both Ronan and Dylan Farrow noted that Hachette had not fact-checked Allen’s memoir. That’s a common practice in book publishing, which generally places the burden of accuracy on the author. But the practice has led to multiple scandals in high-profile releases over the past few years, most recently when Jill Abramson’s book was found to contain multiple errors. In contrast, Dylan Farrow pointed out, her own claims have been subject to extensive journalistic fact-checking.
Since Tuesday, when Hachette announced its plans to publish Allen’s memoir, employees from both Little, Brown and Grand Central have repeatedly attempted to speak to Hachette’s human resources department about the memoir. On Thursday, the company held two town halls in which staff could air their concerns — and by 2 pm, shortly after the second town hall meeting, plans to walk out had coalesced. At 3 pm, concerned Hachette employees, including both junior staff members and senior, director, and executive-level staff, had left the company’s offices. The walkout affects Hachette’s office locations in both New York and Boston.
In an industry as notoriously hierarchical and slow to evolve as publishing is, that’s a risky decision, with few if any precedents to guide protesters.
75 plus employees of Hachette are standing in solidarity with @ronanfarrow, @realdylanfarrow and survivors of sexual assault and walked out of the Hachette offices today in protest of Woody Allen’s memoir. #HachetteWalkout #LittleBrownWalkout pic.twitter.com/wTNi3c7gy8 — Kendra Barkoff Lamy (@kabarkoff) March 5, 2020
Allen has reportedly been shopping a proposal for his memoir to publishers for years. The New York Times reported that in 2003, he nearly sold it to Penguin for $3 million, but at the last minute decided to hold out for more money. And in 2019, as Allen’s reputation faltered in the wake of the Me Too movement, multiple publishers reported that an agent representing Allen had reached out to them with a memoir proposal to no avail.
In 2019, the narrative was that publishers just weren’t interested and that a post-Me Too Allen was a liability for any company. But the Guardian reports that Hachette quietly acquired Allen’s book just under a year ago, around the same time that other publishers were declaring the memoir dead on arrival. Hachette kept the deal under wraps until this month.
In an emailed statement to Vox, Hachette Book Group CEO Michael Pietsch said, “We respect and understand the perspective of our employees who have decided to express their concern over the publication of this book. We will engage our staff in a fuller discussion about this at the earliest opportunity.”
Correction: An earlier version of this story said that Jill Lepore’s book was found to contain errors last year. It was Jill Abramson’s. We regret the error.


vox--2020-03-05--Covid-19, explained by Carl (who has it)

Carl Goldman gifted his wife , Jeri Seratti-Goldman , a combined Christmas and birthday present this year of a trip to Southeast Asia on a Princess Cruise .
The Diamond Princess , to be exact .
Along with two of their close friends , he left for Tokyo on January 17 and boarded the ship three days later .
On the final day of the sail , the captain announced that a passenger who had left the ship in Hong Kong four days earlier now had the coronavirus .
The ship went back to Yokohama Harbor in Japan , Goldman @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Explained , so authorities could come aboard and make a decision .
Later , it became clear that 10 people on the ship had tested positive for Covid-19 .
After that , Goldman says , began the “ daily count ” — basically , “ the captain coming on to the speaker every day and announcing more and more had the virus.
” Eventually , Goldman was one of the 328 Americans on the ship who got on two cargo planes headed for military bases in the US : the Travis Air Force @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Lackland Air Force Base near San Antonio , Texas .
When he spoke with Today , Explained host Sean Rameswaram from a quarantine facility in Nebraska Medicine in Omaha , he had been there for 16 days .
And he tested positive for Covid-19 .
Listen to the full episode of Today , Explained — Vox ’ s daily explainer podcast — to hear Goldman share more about his quarantine experience .
In the second half of the episode , Vox ’ s Kelsey Piper explains “ community spread ” — when somebody @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their life and exposes other people .
Below is a lightly edited transcript of Goldman ’ s conversation with host Sean Rameswaram .
Subscribe to Today , Explained wherever you get your podcasts , including : Apple Podcasts , Google Podcasts , Spotify and Stitcher .
You can check out our guide to news of the coronavirus outbreak here , and listen to other Vox podcasts on the topic here .
Yes , so I was in the epicenter of [ the US medical evacuation ] .
Three hundred of us chose to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ US Embassy suggested we leave .
We were taken by bus over to an airport in Tokyo that had two 747 military cargo planes standing by .
While we were on the bus , authorities learned that some people had the virus .
I had been tested two days earlier for the virus , but did not get the results .
So I was not one of the group that had tested positive while we ’ re on the bus .
So I did not know I had the virus boarded the plane @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been an all-nighter for all of us .
I woke up two hours later with a very , very high fever , 103 .
They placed me inside a quarantined area on the plane .
I fell asleep and woke up eight hours later when we landed at Travis Air Force Base .
What happened to you next ?
Six of us continued on the flight to Omaha .
When we got to Omaha , I was taken off the plane , put in an ambulance , [ they ] took me to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ then put me in a room that was sealed off .
I was contained in there for 12 days .
Anyone who entered my room came in in full hazmat gear , three layers of gloves .
On the 12th day , I was healthy enough to be downgraded and released into an area where the other they were 15 of us here in Omaha , 13 have the virus and two have been released .
One is my wife .
So that ’ s wonderful .
She never had the virus , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ guess something I ’ m curious about , Carl , is : How does it feel to have coronavirus ?
How are you ?
What ’ s weird about this virus is a lot of the symptoms are like a mild cold for me , without any of the drippy nose , no sneezing , no body aches .
It was simply a very , very high fever that spiked for about 10 hours , disappeared , came back as a low-grade fever about two days later .
Other than that , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , I do not have any symptoms of the virus , even though I am still testing positive .
So those germs are still in there , and I ’ m still contagious .
I ’ m not going to be allowed out of here until authorities are sure that I ’ m not going to be contagious .
I ’ m not going to be allowed out of here until authorities are sure that I ’ m not going to be contagious .
What ’ s life like now in this facility @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be there ?
How does this story end for you ?
It will end when I eventually go home after testing negative for three days .
So you can just flush coronavirus out of your system ?
Yeah , the coronavirus , like the flu or like any other virus , eventually leaves the system .
And my body ’ s immune system fights off the virus and eventually it will get killed off .
I just wonder : Do you think the world is prepared for this , from your experience @ @ @ @ @ @ @ re on the verge of a full-blown catastrophe ?
Well , it already is a catastrophe because there are deaths that have happened from this , there ’ s so much that ’ s unknown about the virus .
When I was put into the biocontainment unit in Omaha , they said there was no antibiotics they gave me .
I was given a little bit of ibuprofen to make sure the fever stayed down .
And I was given a lot of Gatorade .
I joke about that .
I ’ ve @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the full rainbow spectrum , multiple amounts of time to make sure I got hydrated and stay hydrated .
But right now , there is no cure for it .
I think we just have to be smart about it .
And when I come home , I ’ m not going to be doing the California hugs and kisses , even though I will not have the virus urging everyone not to do that .
We should probably move for a while to the Japanese simple bowing to each other .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Once the doctor clears you and you get to go home to California , I wonder : Are you at all fearful that this thing could come back ?
Or do you have faith that once it ’ s out of your system , it ’ s gone forever ?
We ’ re being assured by the CDC that it will be quite some time before the virus can come back to our bodies .
They don ’ t know if we ’ ve created an immunity forever , but they ’ ve @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , many , many months still being totally immune to getting the virus .
Let ’ s hope it ’ s gone once it ’ s gone , huh ?
Absolutely .
I ’ ve been staying positive , making lemonade out of lemons and realizing a lot of this is out of my control .
I ’ ve been posting a daily blog on our radio station ’ s news website , Hometown Station , and try to show the humorous side to this as well as the serious side , because @ @ @ @ @ @ @ attitude , that in itself is a giant healing process .

Carl Goldman gifted his wife, Jeri Seratti-Goldman, a combined Christmas and birthday present this year of a trip to Southeast Asia on a Princess Cruise. The Diamond Princess, to be exact.
Along with two of their close friends, he left for Tokyo on January 17 and boarded the ship three days later. On the final day of the sail, the captain announced that a passenger who had left the ship in Hong Kong four days earlier now had the coronavirus. The ship went back to Yokohama Harbor in Japan, Goldman explains on this episode of Today, Explained, so authorities could come aboard and make a decision.
All of us kind of resigned ourselves and said, okay, it’s one day. Japanese health officials had come on board. They took everybody’s temperature. That was about an 18-hour process. They then told us when we woke up the next day, the captain announced that we were not going to be able to leave the ship the next day. And we were now quarantined in our cabins for 14 days.
Later, it became clear that 10 people on the ship had tested positive for Covid-19. After that, Goldman says, began the “daily count” — basically, “the captain coming on to the speaker every day and announcing more and more had the virus.”
Eventually, Goldman was one of the 328 Americans on the ship who got on two cargo planes headed for military bases in the US: the Travis Air Force Base in Fairfield, California, or Lackland Air Force Base near San Antonio, Texas. When he spoke with Today, Explained host Sean Rameswaram from a quarantine facility in Nebraska Medicine in Omaha, he had been there for 16 days. And he tested positive for Covid-19.
Related Understand the unfolding coronavirus outbreak with these Vox podcast episodes
Listen to the full episode of Today, Explained — Vox’s daily explainer podcast — to hear Goldman share more about his quarantine experience. In the second half of the episode, Vox’s Kelsey Piper explains “community spread” — when somebody who isn’t caught goes about their life and exposes other people.
Below is a lightly edited transcript of Goldman’s conversation with host Sean Rameswaram.
Subscribe to Today, Explained wherever you get your podcasts, including: Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, Spotify and Stitcher. You can check out our guide to news of the coronavirus outbreak here, and listen to other Vox podcasts on the topic here.
Carl Goldman
Yes, so I was in the epicenter of [the US medical evacuation]. Three hundred of us chose to leave when the State Department and the US Embassy suggested we leave. We were taken by bus over to an airport in Tokyo that had two 747 military cargo planes standing by.
While we were on the bus, authorities learned that some people had the virus. I had been tested two days earlier for the virus, but did not get the results. So I was not one of the group that had tested positive while we’re on the bus. So I did not know I had the virus boarded the plane six hours later. It had already been an all-nighter for all of us. I woke up two hours later with a very, very high fever, 103.
They placed me inside a quarantined area on the plane. I fell asleep and woke up eight hours later when we landed at Travis Air Force Base.
Sean Rameswaram
What happened to you next?
Carl Goldman
Six of us continued on the flight to Omaha. When we got to Omaha, I was taken off the plane, put in an ambulance, [they] took me to a biocontainment area at the hospital and then put me in a room that was sealed off. I was contained in there for 12 days. Anyone who entered my room came in in full hazmat gear, three layers of gloves. On the 12th day, I was healthy enough to be downgraded and released into an area where the other they were 15 of us here in Omaha, 13 have the virus and two have been released. One is my wife. So that’s wonderful. She never had the virus, came out negative with that.
Sean Rameswaram
I guess something I’m curious about, Carl, is: How does it feel to have coronavirus? How are you?
Carl Goldman
What’s weird about this virus is a lot of the symptoms are like a mild cold for me, without any of the drippy nose, no sneezing, no body aches. It was simply a very, very high fever that spiked for about 10 hours, disappeared, came back as a low-grade fever about two days later.
Other than that, and being dehydrated a bit from the fever, I do not have any symptoms of the virus, even though I am still testing positive. So those germs are still in there, and I’m still contagious. I’m not going to be allowed out of here until authorities are sure that I’m not going to be contagious.
I’m not going to be allowed out of here until authorities are sure that I’m not going to be contagious.
Sean Rameswaram
What’s life like now in this facility? How much time do you have to be there? How does this story end for you?
Carl Goldman
It will end when I eventually go home after testing negative for three days.
Sean Rameswaram
So you can just flush coronavirus out of your system?
Carl Goldman
Yeah, the coronavirus, like the flu or like any other virus, eventually leaves the system. And my body’s immune system fights off the virus and eventually it will get killed off.
Sean Rameswaram
I just wonder: Do you think the world is prepared for this, from your experience? Or do you think we’re on the verge of a full-blown catastrophe?
Carl Goldman
Well, it already is a catastrophe because there are deaths that have happened from this, there’s so much that’s unknown about the virus. When I was put into the biocontainment unit in Omaha, they said there was no antibiotics they gave me. I was given a little bit of ibuprofen to make sure the fever stayed down. And I was given a lot of Gatorade. I joke about that. I’ve been through every single flavor of Gatorade, the full rainbow spectrum, multiple amounts of time to make sure I got hydrated and stay hydrated.
But right now, there is no cure for it. I think we just have to be smart about it. And when I come home, I’m not going to be doing the California hugs and kisses, even though I will not have the virus urging everyone not to do that. We should probably move for a while to the Japanese simple bowing to each other. That might be a good thing.
Sean Rameswaram
Once the doctor clears you and you get to go home to California, I wonder: Are you at all fearful that this thing could come back? Or do you have faith that once it’s out of your system, it’s gone forever?
Carl Goldman
We’re being assured by the CDC that it will be quite some time before the virus can come back to our bodies. They don’t know if we’ve created an immunity forever, but they’ve assured us that we will go many, many, many months still being totally immune to getting the virus.
Sean Rameswaram
Let’s hope it’s gone once it’s gone, huh?
Carl Goldman
Absolutely. I’ve been staying positive, making lemonade out of lemons and realizing a lot of this is out of my control. I’ve been posting a daily blog on our radio station’s news website, Hometown Station, and try to show the humorous side to this as well as the serious side, because I believe if you keep a positive attitude, that in itself is a giant healing process.


vox--2020-03-05--How the coronavirus rumor mill can thrive in private group chats

With the Covid-19 coronavirus outbreak still so new , fear of the death and disruption it could cause rapidly mounting , and treatments for it still a big question mark , rumors and misinformation about the outbreak are starting to spread .
A wary public might be especially susceptible to believing unverified rumors about how the outbreak began ( nope , the new coronavirus wasn ’ t created in a lab ) or taking misguided measures to protect themselves ( unless you ’ re sick or caring for someone who is , face masks aren ’ t the answer !
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ can be dangerous .
The spread of misinformation is already commonplace on social media , where the sharing of content from biased sources frequently outpaces whatever fact-checking and moderation safeguards are in place .
Which is why coronavirus myths are starting to crop up on both Facebook and Twitter , along with YouTube and TikTok and messaging apps like WhatsApp .
YouTube videos advertising the “ truth ” about the virus are showing up in people ’ s recommended video feeds , and there are millions of tweets alleging that the US government @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Your aunt ’ s best buddy that you are friends with on Facebook with could very well be sharing a highly questionable article about how coronavirus will definitely kill you soon , right this moment .
( Go check your Facebook feed .
I ’ ll wait . )
There are a lot of things we genuinely don ’ t know yet about the coronavirus , and for the makers of those platforms , distinguishing the right details from the wrong ones is a difficult process .
That difficulty multiples when the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ For example : Anti-vaxxers regularly gather in invite-only Facebook groups to share damaging rhetoric about vaccinations , which can later make its way to the feeds of Facebook users who aren ’ t in those groups .
The contained anti-vaxx group is harder to police than the general newsfeed , allowing misinformation to proliferate .
There are reports that similar groups are now circulating hoax-like content about the coronavirus , sending users panicking behind closed doors for reasons that may not be based in reality .
Facebook , Twitter , YouTube , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ posts from traveling widely , according to Recode .
In the case of Facebook specifically , CEO Mark Zuckerberg published a lengthy statement on March 3 , pledging that Facebook will flag any info that needs to be fact-checked , and that it will also block ads from shady enterprises attempting to prey on people ’ s fears .
The extent to which any of these companies can adequately prevent misinformation from spreading remains unseen , but the commitment is encouraging .
But with private messages and group chats , where friends and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to more serious matters , successful moderation of health crisis fear-mongering can seem impossible .
The rumors on messaging apps sometimes make their way offline like they ’ re part of a game of telephone .
A link shared in one group can easily be passed along by one of its members to another group , and another , until there are numerous people who don ’ t even use WhatsApp who stopped going to that restaurant in Chinatown where they ’ re sure a cook had coronavirus .
The sourcing for these @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s how rumors work — but their ramifications are heavy .
East Asian-owned businesses are losing customers as a result , according to recent reports from the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times .
That ’ s in large part due to xenophobia surrounding the coronavirus .
But in some cases , it ’ s because patrons of these businesses are themselves spreading stories that aren ’ t based in fact .
In one bizarre but poignant case reported by Matthew Kang at Eater , several specific restaurants in Los Angeles @ @ @ @ @ @ @ drop off by over 50 percent , thanks to a rumor spread via KakaoTalk .
KakaoTalk is an app similar to WhatsApp that ’ s popular among Korean speakers both in South Korea and the US ; users from both countries shared a simplistic Instagram screenshot across the platform , an image that named places an allegedly infected flight attendant visited during a layover in Los Angeles .
The post set off hysteria that eating at those restaurants could cause coronavirus infections , and suddenly , many Koreans in L.A. were avoiding them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to any part of the story , but hearsay overpowered reality ; such is the power of the group chat groupthink .
But therein lies the problem : Although it ’ s not encrypted to the same extent that WhatsApp is , KakaoTalk is similarly private and similarly unmoderated .
Social media companies can control content on their public platforms to some extent , but when it comes to private messages , DMs , and group chats , the right to privacy works against attempts to prevent false info that might be going @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be stepping in to stop people from ( sometimes unknowingly ) spreading rumors that obscure the truth about an impending global crisis ?
Or is the onus on the people in the group chats ?
These aren ’ t easy or simple questions to answer .
But in Thursday ’ s episode of Recode ’ s podcast Reset , I spoke to someone who tried their best .
Russell Brandom is a policy editor at The Verge , where he covers regulatory practices in politics , technology , culture , and beyond .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ our conversation , in which we discussed where responsibility lies to blunt dangerous misinformation from spreading in private messages and group chats .
There are a lot of gray areas when it comes to enforcing freedom of speech on social media .
And one place where I feel like it ’ s especially tricky is with insular communities , like encrypted and private channels and websites — such as Facebook groups and messaging apps .
In these places , there isn ’ t moderation to the same extent that there is on more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Facebook .
There can ’ t be , because it would be a violation of privacy to have companies surveil our messages .
So could misinformation be more harmful and easily spread in these encrypted messaging apps , where there isn ’ t that same moderation scale as on more publicly visible timelines ?
The way that I think about it is that censorship is kind of this dirty word , like , you say it and people straighten up .
But in a very basic sense , if someone is trying to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you ’ re like , maybe don ’ t say that , that ’ s censorship .
That doesn ’ t have to be bad , though .
I think that censorship is less harmful as you get to the bigger and bigger channels .
If you ’ re going on national broadcast news and everyone with an antenna can get it and you ’ re using public airwaves to share misinformation , then it makes sense for there to be this higher standard of what is acceptable speech .
If someone is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s going on YouTube , and it ’ s going to be promoted algorithmically to millions of people , it actually does make sense that YouTube should be the one taking responsibility for what it ’ s promoting in that way .
[ The situation gets trickier ] when you get into these encrypted group chats .
Say it ’ s a one-on-one thing — I ’ m just going to pick up my phone and send this link about the coronavirus to you , Allegra .
What if the messaging app @ @ @ @ @ @ @ No , you ’ re not allowed to send that link ” ?
That seems messed up .
Right , because as private citizens , we ’ re not comfortable with the moderation options that are more analogous to surveillance .
So is it on us to vet and stop the spread of mistruths ?
I mean , I think the answer Facebook would give us is yes .
But what is the responsibility of users , specifically , to actually try tamping down on this misinformation — when it comes to something @ @ @ @ @ @ @ health crises , at least ?
I don ’ t know that just bystander intervention is really a good strategy .
Is it enough if I ’ m going to sit down with my loopy aunt and have a real talk about the things she ’ s sharing on the internet ?
I mean , that ’ s fine .
I ’ m less troubled by someone sharing something that ’ s false than sharing something that could hurt someone .
And that ’ s a lot of what we ’ re talking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is that your child could get measles and get horribly sick .
It ’ s not just that someone has this belief that I consider incorrect .
There ’ s concrete harm that ’ s directly related to the thing they ’ re sharing .
That ’ s also [ true ] if someone shares something that could inflame existing societal tensions that result in this mob violence .
If someone is sharing something that ’ s going to make people freak out and panic about coronavirus and then do something that will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to me , always feels more urgent .
And even if the sender resists when the people they shared those coronavirus myths or other incendiary links with respond to debunk the claims , the sender has to understand where those people are coming from .
They ’ re coming from a place of concern for others rather than just being like , “ You ’ re an idiot .
I hold very different political beliefs than you.
” It seems that ultimately , misinformation is such a big problem in this day and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trying to figure out the best way to combat it .
So the most we can do is , I think , continue having these conversations .
To hear us talk more about the nature and damage of misinformation in the wake of the coronavirus — as well as more on the story of how KakaoTalk scared people away from Koreatown businesses , from Eater LA ’ s Matthew Kang — listen to the full episode .

With the Covid-19 coronavirus outbreak still so new, fear of the death and disruption it could cause rapidly mounting, and treatments for it still a big question mark, rumors and misinformation about the outbreak are starting to spread.
A wary public might be especially susceptible to believing unverified rumors about how the outbreak began (nope, the new coronavirus wasn’t created in a lab) or taking misguided measures to protect themselves (unless you’re sick or caring for someone who is, face masks aren’t the answer!). And buying into alarmist falsehoods can be dangerous.
The spread of misinformation is already commonplace on social media, where the sharing of content from biased sources frequently outpaces whatever fact-checking and moderation safeguards are in place. Which is why coronavirus myths are starting to crop up on both Facebook and Twitter, along with YouTube and TikTok and messaging apps like WhatsApp.
YouTube videos advertising the “truth” about the virus are showing up in people’s recommended video feeds, and there are millions of tweets alleging that the US government played a role in creating the virus. Your aunt’s best buddy that you are friends with on Facebook with could very well be sharing a highly questionable article about how coronavirus will definitely kill you soon, right this moment. (Go check your Facebook feed. I’ll wait.)
There are a lot of things we genuinely don’t know yet about the coronavirus, and for the makers of those platforms, distinguishing the right details from the wrong ones is a difficult process. That difficulty multiples when the misinformation is dispersed in private groups.
For example: Anti-vaxxers regularly gather in invite-only Facebook groups to share damaging rhetoric about vaccinations, which can later make its way to the feeds of Facebook users who aren’t in those groups. The contained anti-vaxx group is harder to police than the general newsfeed, allowing misinformation to proliferate. There are reports that similar groups are now circulating hoax-like content about the coronavirus, sending users panicking behind closed doors for reasons that may not be based in reality.
Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and TikTok have all pledged to stop these posts from traveling widely, according to Recode. In the case of Facebook specifically, CEO Mark Zuckerberg published a lengthy statement on March 3, pledging that Facebook will flag any info that needs to be fact-checked, and that it will also block ads from shady enterprises attempting to prey on people’s fears. The extent to which any of these companies can adequately prevent misinformation from spreading remains unseen, but the commitment is encouraging.
But with private messages and group chats, where friends and family members might discuss everything from gossip to more serious matters, successful moderation of health crisis fear-mongering can seem impossible.
The rumors on messaging apps sometimes make their way offline like they’re part of a game of telephone. A link shared in one group can easily be passed along by one of its members to another group, and another, until there are numerous people who don’t even use WhatsApp who stopped going to that restaurant in Chinatown where they’re sure a cook had coronavirus.
The sourcing for these stories is usually non-existent — that’s how rumors work — but their ramifications are heavy. East Asian-owned businesses are losing customers as a result, according to recent reports from the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times. That’s in large part due to xenophobia surrounding the coronavirus. But in some cases, it’s because patrons of these businesses are themselves spreading stories that aren’t based in fact.
In one bizarre but poignant case reported by Matthew Kang at Eater, several specific restaurants in Los Angeles’s Koreatown neighborhood have seen business drop off by over 50 percent, thanks to a rumor spread via KakaoTalk.
KakaoTalk is an app similar to WhatsApp that’s popular among Korean speakers both in South Korea and the US; users from both countries shared a simplistic Instagram screenshot across the platform, an image that named places an allegedly infected flight attendant visited during a layover in Los Angeles. The post set off hysteria that eating at those restaurants could cause coronavirus infections, and suddenly, many Koreans in L.A. were avoiding them en masse. There was no truth to any part of the story, but hearsay overpowered reality; such is the power of the group chat groupthink.
But therein lies the problem: Although it’s not encrypted to the same extent that WhatsApp is, KakaoTalk is similarly private and similarly unmoderated. Social media companies can control content on their public platforms to some extent, but when it comes to private messages, DMs, and group chats, the right to privacy works against attempts to prevent false info that might be going around.
So should social media companies be stepping in to stop people from (sometimes unknowingly) spreading rumors that obscure the truth about an impending global crisis? Or is the onus on the people in the group chats?
These aren’t easy or simple questions to answer. But in Thursday’s episode of Recode’s podcast Reset, I spoke to someone who tried their best. Russell Brandom is a policy editor at The Verge, where he covers regulatory practices in politics, technology, culture, and beyond. Below is a lightly edited segment of our conversation, in which we discussed where responsibility lies to blunt dangerous misinformation from spreading in private messages and group chats.
Allegra Frank
There are a lot of gray areas when it comes to enforcing freedom of speech on social media. And one place where I feel like it’s especially tricky is with insular communities, like encrypted and private channels and websites — such as Facebook groups and messaging apps.
In these places, there isn’t moderation to the same extent that there is on more public platforms like YouTube, Twitter, Facebook. There can’t be, because it would be a violation of privacy to have companies surveil our messages. So could misinformation be more harmful and easily spread in these encrypted messaging apps, where there isn’t that same moderation scale as on more publicly visible timelines?
Russell Brandom
The way that I think about it is that censorship is kind of this dirty word, like, you say it and people straighten up. But in a very basic sense, if someone is trying to say something in a channel, and you’re like, maybe don’t say that, that’s censorship. That doesn’t have to be bad, though. I think that censorship is less harmful as you get to the bigger and bigger channels.
If you’re going on national broadcast news and everyone with an antenna can get it and you’re using public airwaves to share misinformation, then it makes sense for there to be this higher standard of what is acceptable speech. If someone is sharing incorrect information in a video that’s going on YouTube, and it’s going to be promoted algorithmically to millions of people, it actually does make sense that YouTube should be the one taking responsibility for what it’s promoting in that way.
[The situation gets trickier] when you get into these encrypted group chats. Say it’s a one-on-one thing — I’m just going to pick up my phone and send this link about the coronavirus to you, Allegra. What if the messaging app is then going to say, “No, you’re not allowed to send that link”? That seems messed up.
Allegra Frank
Right, because as private citizens, we’re not comfortable with the moderation options that are more analogous to surveillance. So is it on us to vet and stop the spread of mistruths? I mean, I think the answer Facebook would give us is yes. But what is the responsibility of users, specifically, to actually try tamping down on this misinformation — when it comes to something as broadly dangerous and impactful as global health crises, at least?
Russell Brandom
I don’t know that just bystander intervention is really a good strategy. Is it enough if I’m going to sit down with my loopy aunt and have a real talk about the things she’s sharing on the internet? I mean, that’s fine. I’m less troubled by someone sharing something that’s false than sharing something that could hurt someone. And that’s a lot of what we’re talking about when we talk about misinformation, is that your child could get measles and get horribly sick. It’s not just that someone has this belief that I consider incorrect. There’s concrete harm that’s directly related to the thing they’re sharing.
That’s also [true] if someone shares something that could inflame existing societal tensions that result in this mob violence. If someone is sharing something that’s going to make people freak out and panic about coronavirus and then do something that will hurt themselves or others — that, to me, always feels more urgent.
And even if the sender resists when the people they shared those coronavirus myths or other incendiary links with respond to debunk the claims, the sender has to understand where those people are coming from. They’re coming from a place of concern for others rather than just being like, “You’re an idiot. I hold very different political beliefs than you.”
Allegra Frank
It seems that ultimately, misinformation is such a big problem in this day and age, and we’re still trying to figure out the best way to combat it. So the most we can do is, I think, continue having these conversations.
To hear us talk more about the nature and damage of misinformation in the wake of the coronavirus — as well as more on the story of how KakaoTalk scared people away from Koreatown businesses, from Eater LA’s Matthew Kang — listen to the full episode.


vox--2020-03-05--Silicon Valley’s top investing firm has a stark message on coronavirus: Prepare for the worst

One of the most prestigious brands in Silicon Valley investing is issuing a dire warning about the impact of the novel coronavirus .
In a memo packed with symbolism that harked back to an iconic notice issued just before the financial crisis , Sequoia Capital on Thursday painted a dark portrait of how the outbreak could reshape Silicon Valley .
Sequoia is widely regarded as Silicon Valley ’ s most prestigious venture capital firm , and the memo ricocheted around social media in a way that it only would because it is , well , Sequoia .
Calling coronavirus “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sequoia predicted that the global economy could be dislodged by the virus , and the firm told its portfolio companies , “ We suggest you question every assumption about your business.
” “ Having weathered every business downturn for nearly fifty years , we ’ ve learned an important lesson — nobody ever regrets making fast and decisive adjustments to changing circumstances , ” the firm said on Thursday in a memo sent to its portfolio companies that was later posted to Medium .
“ In some ways , business mirrors biology .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ‘ are not the strongest or the most intelligent , but the most adaptable to change.
’ ” Sequoia is the latest giant of finance to urge doomsday preparations .
Stocks have tumbled on Wall Street as the outbreak intensified , raising concerns about a possible recession .
Investment banks like Goldman Sachs have even advised their clients that a recession could be coming .
But in the world of tech startups , it is Sequoia that will turn heads in a way that similar words from any other random venture capital would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Apple , Google , and Airbnb , there is no other brand in tech investing that is as marquee as Sequoia .
The memo issued Thursday was an explicit echo of a famous presentation prepared by Sequoia for its founders in 2008 , known colloquially as “ RIP Good Times , ” about how to prepare for the eventual financial crisis .
That presentation has become legendary in the startup world , although its wisdom remains debated to this day .
As was true before that “ black swan moment , ” Sequoia @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to underestimate the risk .
“ We didn ’ t know then , just like we don ’ t know now , how long or how sharp or shallow of a downturn we will face , ” Sequoia partner Alfred Lin — who in 2008 was an executive at Sequoia-backed Zappos — said in Thursday ’ s post .
Specifically , Sequoia is telling its founders to question how much cash it has before running out of money “ to avoid potentially painful future consequences ” ; to prepare for a challenging fundraising @ @ @ @ @ @ @ needs for customer marketing ; and to consider lowering headcount and spending less .
In the world of optimism that is Silicon Valley — real or contrived — the memo stands out for its bluntness and honesty .
And if the coronavirus outbreak becomes as iconic as the global financial crisis , this Medium post could be seen as precocious and equally epochal .

One of the most prestigious brands in Silicon Valley investing is issuing a dire warning about the impact of the novel coronavirus.
In a memo packed with symbolism that harked back to an iconic notice issued just before the financial crisis, Sequoia Capital on Thursday painted a dark portrait of how the outbreak could reshape Silicon Valley. Sequoia is widely regarded as Silicon Valley’s most prestigious venture capital firm, and the memo ricocheted around social media in a way that it only would because it is, well, Sequoia.
Calling coronavirus “the black swan of 2020,” Sequoia predicted that the global economy could be dislodged by the virus, and the firm told its portfolio companies, “We suggest you question every assumption about your business.”
“Having weathered every business downturn for nearly fifty years, we’ve learned an important lesson — nobody ever regrets making fast and decisive adjustments to changing circumstances,” the firm said on Thursday in a memo sent to its portfolio companies that was later posted to Medium. “In some ways, business mirrors biology. As Darwin surmised, those who survive ‘are not the strongest or the most intelligent, but the most adaptable to change.’”
Sequoia is the latest giant of finance to urge doomsday preparations. Stocks have tumbled on Wall Street as the outbreak intensified, raising concerns about a possible recession. Investment banks like Goldman Sachs have even advised their clients that a recession could be coming.
But in the world of tech startups, it is Sequoia that will turn heads in a way that similar words from any other random venture capital would not. As the half-century-old firm behind Apple, Google, and Airbnb, there is no other brand in tech investing that is as marquee as Sequoia.
The memo issued Thursday was an explicit echo of a famous presentation prepared by Sequoia for its founders in 2008, known colloquially as “RIP Good Times,” about how to prepare for the eventual financial crisis. That presentation has become legendary in the startup world, although its wisdom remains debated to this day.
While I continue to believe @sequoia RIP Good Times deck from 2008 was hyperbolic, this memo on #CoronaVirus is well done.
Founders aren’t thinking clearly about potential macro effects that will affect timing for them on operating results & financing. https://t.co/KmqSz1SMo9 — Adam Nash (@adamnash) March 5, 2020
As was true before that “black swan moment,” Sequoia said, company founders cannot afford to underestimate the risk.
“We didn’t know then, just like we don’t know now, how long or how sharp or shallow of a downturn we will face,” Sequoia partner Alfred Lin — who in 2008 was an executive at Sequoia-backed Zappos — said in Thursday’s post.
Specifically, Sequoia is telling its founders to question how much cash it has before running out of money “to avoid potentially painful future consequences”; to prepare for a challenging fundraising environment, softening sales, and greater needs for customer marketing; and to consider lowering headcount and spending less.
In the world of optimism that is Silicon Valley — real or contrived — the memo stands out for its bluntness and honesty. And if the coronavirus outbreak becomes as iconic as the global financial crisis, this Medium post could be seen as precocious and equally epochal.


vox--2020-03-05--Netflix’s Love Is Blind reunion was a little too nice for such a messy show

Love Is Blind began as a show with a peculiar stunt and hypothesis : matching people with their soulmates without letting them see each other and seeing if love would turn into a marriage after 38 days .
Over 10 episodes , it blossomed into a beast that was part cringe , part earnest joy , and a firsthand look at Jessica , a baby-voiced 34-year-old , and her unseemly downward spiral .
When the dust settled we were left with five couples — Lauren and Cameron ; Giannina and Damian ; Kelly and Kenny ; Barnett and Amber ; @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of whether or not they would get married .
Lauren and Cameron and Barnett and Amber did , while the rest of the couples ended their intense showmances at the wedding altar .
Perhaps the most mind-blowing thing about the show , aside from its premise , is that it ended filming over a year ago .
The married couples have been enjoying married life since then , while those in broken engagements have been reliving those dead-end relationships now that the show is airing .
And on Thursday , after all that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ guinea pigs together to talk about the experience , update us on their lives , and confront each other over past grievances .
Vox senior correspondent and Giannina stan Alex Abad-Santos and The Goods deputy editor and Jessica apologist Meredith Haggerty are here to recap how the reunion episode shook out , who ended it on top , and who revealed that they were a little more single now than they were when they started .
Amber pulled the reunion ’ s biggest power move by showing up with blond hair , dyed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ saw her sporting throughout the season .
Amber ’ s blond hair seemed to be a dig at the also-blond Jessica who had her eye on Amber ’ s now-husband Barnett the whole time .
It was as though Amber found the only possible advantage Jessica had on her and then showed Jessica that not only does she have the same color hair but also the husband Jessica wanted .
Amber also got in what was the most explosive jab of the reunion .
After watching the scenes of Jessica trying to go @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that Amber had previously not seen — she said Jessica ’ s behavior toward Barnett , Jessica ’ s fiancé Mark , and Amber herself was all-around sloppy and inappropriate .
“ Bitch , you ’ re sheisty , ” Amber told Jessica , providing the episode ’ s only real zinger and a moment of accountability toward the contestant whose behavior over the past season warranted it the most .
Since episode one , Lauren and Cameron have been the clear winner of the Love Is Blind experiment — “ winner ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as they explained during the reunion , they ’ re becoming one person .
These two beautiful and practical people seemed to show up to the pods prepared to fall in love , ready to find their soulmate with organization and precision .
They checked each other ’ s boxes at a dizzying but somehow methodical speed , and they remain clearly in love today .
They ’ re on the road to having kids !
They ’ re still both extremely attractive !
They got a dog , which is sweet , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a fur baby !
If Love Is Blind had been all fun-but-down-to-earth Laurens and calm-but-soulful Camerons , well , it would have been boring and treacly .
But as something one-of-a-kind , they lent this fake experiment an air of legitimacy , and they ’ re still the great hope of the show .
The couples of Love Is Blind that are still together weren ’ t the only ones to find love thanks to the show .
Kenny reports that as a result of learning how to open up in the pods @ @ @ @ @ @ @ perfect girlfriend.
” Ever the sweetheart , he adds , “ for me !
” as former fiancée Kelly looks on sadly .
Somewhere , Kelly ’ s mom and sister shed a tear for the thoughtful , handsome son-in-law that could have been .
Sure , Kenny might have had to politely explain the show ’ s conceit to family and friends after Kelly said “ I don ’ t ” at the altar in the finale , but he ’ s never been a loser for a minute .
It ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who was waffling over you forever because of your hair color , and more importantly , he carried himself with class , dignity , and kindness throughout .
That continued into the finale , when he refrained from saying , “ Really , Kelly , because I ’ m freakin ’ blond ?
” There was no contestant this season as enigmatic and captivating as Giannina Milady Gibelli , a beautiful blond succubus who famously ran into the suburban Atlanta woods after being jilted by Damian at the altar , and then returned @ @ @ @ @ @ @ read him to filth .
The two fought about everything and anything , inspiring Giannina to snipe that Damian has complimented her about giving him the best sex of his life , but she had never felt the same way .
Well , it turns out that after flaming out on their wedding day , Giannina and Damian are back together .
And if it ’ s any indication who holds the power in the relationship now ( Giannina ’ s mother , Milady , told her daughter she should ’ ve been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ altar ) , Giannina made Damian cry in front of the rest of the cast and the whole country .
And it was just by making him remember what a great woman she is .
Which is why the most disrespectful part of the reunion came from Nick Lachey ’ s constantly referring to Giannina Milady Gibelli as “ G ” instead of addressing her by her full , proper , given name .
Alex , I ’ m sorry to disagree with your well-argued , anti-season two polemic , but I am @ @ @ @ @ @ @ getting a second season of this gorgeous trash .
I ’ m basing that entirely on the way Vanessa Lachey said “ Love Is Blind , season one , down in the books ” as the finale closes , but also the assumption that Netflix would never decline to re-up a hit like this one .
I think and hope we might have another couple of seasons before Love Is Blind goes full Bachelor .
The specificity of the set-up and the strangely high probability that you could give up a bunch of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ screen at all tell me that Love Is Blind could continue to attract romantics , oddballs , and people deeply intent on having a heterosexual marriage , not just fame seekers .
Plus , we ’ re already seeing influencers spring up among them anyways ( ahem , Giannina ; ahem , all of them , basically ) .
And hey , can ’ t influencers want true love ?
True love gets clicks !
What I ’ m saying is : Netflix , I ’ m available for season two .
Just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Jessica edit .
Loser : Diamond and Carlton ( but it ’ s not entirely their fault ) The only couple at the reunion that didn ’ t make it to the altar was Carlton and Diamond .
They hit it off during the pod portion of the show , but their relationship soured on the honeymoon trip to Mexico , when Carlton came out to Diamond as bisexual .
The two bickered and called each other some pretty gross things , and all in all , their breakup was one of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ including Carlton and Diamond , probably wishes they could forget .
Nick and Vanessa check in with the two to find out that they patched things up and that they ’ re working on a friendship together .
Nick and Vanessa also bring up , in their words , the “ keyboard warriors ” that inundated Carlton and Diamond ’ s social media accounts with hate after the show aired .
In response , Husband-and-Wife Lachey painted Carlton and Diamond as victims and the keyboard warriors as overboard psychopaths .
But amid all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Vanessa , and Love Is Blind ’ s producers failed to recognize the show ’ s own accountability in creating this ugly patch of television .
We aren ’ t privy to the details of what Love Is Blind ’ s producers and casting directors told the contestants , but the show didn ’ t feature any other bisexual or LGBTQ contestants aside from Carlton .
The show was also pretty stereotypically heteronormative in the way it showcased its relationships , the traditions of marriage ( wedding dresses , bachelor and bachelorette parties @ @ @ @ @ @ @ contestants ( e.g .
all the women talking about what they ’ re looking for in a man ) .
When Carlton came out to Diamond , she was in shock .
Her reaction seemed to indicate that she believed the men and women on the show were all heterosexual .
Granted , Diamond ’ s behavior toward Carlton ( asking him about whether or not he could be monogamous , and whether she could be the love of his life if he also was attracted to men ) fits a common pattern @ @ @ @ @ @ @ both gay and heterosexual men and women .
Carlton ’ s aggressive behavior toward Diamond was equally sad and hard to watch .
But it ’ s hard not to see their behavior as reactions to a situation created by the circumstances on the show .
Rather than combating the stereotypes against bisexual people , Love Is Blind leaned into and teased Carlton ’ s sexuality and Diamond ’ s blindside as one of its major plot points .
And it felt a little slimy that the show was then chastising its audience @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s heated moment , a reaction its producers and casting directors were seemingly looking for .
There ’ s no doubt a great reality show can be made about the stigma hardships that bisexual people and their partners deal with .
But judging by the words Nick and Vanessa used to describe Carlton ( “ courageous ” and “ brave ” ) it seems like the people behind Love Is Blind thought they did something admirable .
But this wasn ’ t it .
What ’ s black and white and shines for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reality that Matt Barnett and Amber Barnett are going to get divorced someday .
Also , Barnett ’ s shimmery floral ( ?
?
? )
print jacket , which is just awful .
For Vanderpump Rules fans , Barnett has some serious Jax Taylor vibes — fun and oddly appealing in a bro-y way , but also immature , selfish , and short-sighted — and this jacket reinforces that .
A man who thinks this blazer is a good idea simply is not ready for marriage .
Barnett and his similarly stubborn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ together , but it feels as though Barnett still isn ’ t totally sure what ’ s befallen him , namely that he ’ s legally bound to the woman beside him and wearing a nightclub ’ s bathroom floor as a coat .
Amber drops casually that she nearly divorced him over some unspecified spat , but Barnett says they ’ re just having so much fun .
Best of luck to all three of them !
Loser : The format of the reunion Aside from the confrontation between Amber and Jessica @ @ @ @ @ @ @ snoozer .
Everyone else said they got along with their exes , and the married couples — Amber and Barnett , Lauren and Cameron — said they enjoyed married life .
It seemed as if the contestants all signed a non-aggression pact prior to the reunion .
Or , because of the year between filming and airing , perhaps all the emotions and hard feelings mellowed out .
Regardless , the reunion seemed to stall because they kept addressing the contestants as couples .
It made for ho-hum , generic answers like the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Cameron telling us how nice it is to be married to one another .
Curiously , the most compelling and authentic moments of the reunion were when contestants were addressed as individuals .
Amber gave her candid thoughts about Jessica and didn ’ t totally accept Jessica ’ s apology ; it was the highlight of the show by far .
It would ’ ve been more interesting to see the same kind of insight into , say , how Kenny was feeling when he told production to turn the cameras off , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what Jessica had done to Mark .
Instead , we got Kenny ’ s feelings in the context of Kelly , and Mark ’ s feelings about Jessica from Mark himself , all producing boring answers .
Remember , these are men who were jilted at the altar , and Mark , bless his heart , did not see Jessica doing an entire color guard routine with a giant red flag this season .
Are they really the best people to give unblemished , honest opinions about their ex-fiancées ?
Probably not .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be the villain of Love Is Blind , and it was always going to be the woman on the wrong side of 30 who feeds wine to her dog .
In the spirit of solidarity , I will say that after a few glasses myself , I also speak in an annoying , higher-pitched voice .
At the reunion , Jessica appears , both in terms of her body language and actual words , to have been thoroughly worn down by the fallout from her time in the experiment .
She says @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , refusing to look directly at footage of herself , and how much she didn ’ t like what she saw on screen .
She can ’ t seem to take responsibility for her feelings for Barnett ( “ I didn ’ t even feel that way at the time , ” she insists ) , but she is appropriately chagrined about her past behavior , especially how much of it was fueled by the alcohol her dog didn ’ t get to .
This was , perhaps , a learning experience for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ blond Amber — whose expectations for how Jessica should have behaved seem , frankly , unrealistic — but not to Mark .
Mark and Jessica agree that they wish they had had more time but , both single now , neither makes a move to reconcile .
She ’ s moved on , to Los Angeles , and once she gets rid of that green turtleneck , she ’ ll surely be on a better path .

Love Is Blind began as a show with a peculiar stunt and hypothesis: matching people with their soulmates without letting them see each other and seeing if love would turn into a marriage after 38 days. Over 10 episodes, it blossomed into a beast that was part cringe, part earnest joy, and a firsthand look at Jessica, a baby-voiced 34-year-old, and her unseemly downward spiral.
When the dust settled we were left with five couples — Lauren and Cameron; Giannina and Damian; Kelly and Kenny; Barnett and Amber; Jessica and Mark — and the question of whether or not they would get married. Lauren and Cameron and Barnett and Amber did, while the rest of the couples ended their intense showmances at the wedding altar.
Perhaps the most mind-blowing thing about the show, aside from its premise, is that it ended filming over a year ago. The married couples have been enjoying married life since then, while those in broken engagements have been reliving those dead-end relationships now that the show is airing.
And on Thursday, after all that time apart, Netflix brought their romance guinea pigs together to talk about the experience, update us on their lives, and confront each other over past grievances. Vox senior correspondent and Giannina stan Alex Abad-Santos and The Goods deputy editor and Jessica apologist Meredith Haggerty are here to recap how the reunion episode shook out, who ended it on top, and who revealed that they were a little more single now than they were when they started.
Winner: Amber (and Amber’s hair)
Amber pulled the reunion’s biggest power move by showing up with blond hair, dyed much lighter than the root-beer tint we saw her sporting throughout the season. Amber’s blond hair seemed to be a dig at the also-blond Jessica who had her eye on Amber’s now-husband Barnett the whole time. It was as though Amber found the only possible advantage Jessica had on her and then showed Jessica that not only does she have the same color hair but also the husband Jessica wanted.
Amber also got in what was the most explosive jab of the reunion. After watching the scenes of Jessica trying to go after Barnett during the show — things that Amber had previously not seen — she said Jessica’s behavior toward Barnett, Jessica’s fiancé Mark, and Amber herself was all-around sloppy and inappropriate.
“Bitch, you’re sheisty,” Amber told Jessica, providing the episode’s only real zinger and a moment of accountability toward the contestant whose behavior over the past season warranted it the most.
—Alex Abad-Santos
Winner: Lauren and Cameron
Since episode one, Lauren and Cameron have been the clear winner of the Love Is Blind experiment — “winner” and not “winners,” because as they explained during the reunion, they’re becoming one person. These two beautiful and practical people seemed to show up to the pods prepared to fall in love, ready to find their soulmate with organization and precision. They checked each other’s boxes at a dizzying but somehow methodical speed, and they remain clearly in love today. They’re on the road to having kids! They’re still both extremely attractive! They got a dog, which is sweet, even though they insist on calling it a fur baby!
If Love Is Blind had been all fun-but-down-to-earth Laurens and calm-but-soulful Camerons, well, it would have been boring and treacly. But as something one-of-a-kind, they lent this fake experiment an air of legitimacy, and they’re still the great hope of the show.
—Meredith Haggerty
Winner: Sweet baby Kenny
The couples of Love Is Blind that are still together weren’t the only ones to find love thanks to the show. Kenny reports that as a result of learning how to open up in the pods, he’s found the “perfect girlfriend.” Ever the sweetheart, he adds, “for me!” as former fiancée Kelly looks on sadly. Somewhere, Kelly’s mom and sister shed a tear for the thoughtful, handsome son-in-law that could have been.
Sure, Kenny might have had to politely explain the show’s conceit to family and friends after Kelly said “I don’t” at the altar in the finale, but he’s never been a loser for a minute. It’s objectively good to not marry someone who was waffling over you forever because of your hair color, and more importantly, he carried himself with class, dignity, and kindness throughout. That continued into the finale, when he refrained from saying, “Really, Kelly, because I’m freakin’ blond?”
—MH
Winner: Giannina Milady Gibelli
There was no contestant this season as enigmatic and captivating as Giannina Milady Gibelli, a beautiful blond succubus who famously ran into the suburban Atlanta woods after being jilted by Damian at the altar, and then returned, bride hair perfectly intact, to read him to filth. The two fought about everything and anything, inspiring Giannina to snipe that Damian has complimented her about giving him the best sex of his life, but she had never felt the same way.
Well, it turns out that after flaming out on their wedding day, Giannina and Damian are back together. And if it’s any indication who holds the power in the relationship now (Giannina’s mother, Milady, told her daughter she should’ve been the one to dump Damian at the altar), Giannina made Damian cry in front of the rest of the cast and the whole country. And it was just by making him remember what a great woman she is.
Which is why the most disrespectful part of the reunion came from Nick Lachey’s constantly referring to Giannina Milady Gibelli as “G” instead of addressing her by her full, proper, given name.
—AAS
Winner: Us, the viewers
Alex, I’m sorry to disagree with your well-argued, anti-season two polemic, but I am so excited that we are almost definitely getting a second season of this gorgeous trash. I’m basing that entirely on the way Vanessa Lachey said “Love Is Blind, season one, down in the books” as the finale closes, but also the assumption that Netflix would never decline to re-up a hit like this one.
I think and hope we might have another couple of seasons before Love Is Blind goes full Bachelor. The specificity of the set-up and the strangely high probability that you could give up a bunch of your life and not make it on screen at all tell me that Love Is Blind could continue to attract romantics, oddballs, and people deeply intent on having a heterosexual marriage, not just fame seekers. Plus, we’re already seeing influencers spring up among them anyways (ahem, Giannina; ahem, all of them, basically). And hey, can’t influencers want true love? True love gets clicks!
What I’m saying is: Netflix, I’m available for season two. Just please don’t give me the Jessica edit.
—MH
Loser: Diamond and Carlton (but it’s not entirely their fault)
The only couple at the reunion that didn’t make it to the altar was Carlton and Diamond. They hit it off during the pod portion of the show, but their relationship soured on the honeymoon trip to Mexico, when Carlton came out to Diamond as bisexual. The two bickered and called each other some pretty gross things, and all in all, their breakup was one of the moments of the show that everyone, including Carlton and Diamond, probably wishes they could forget.
Nick and Vanessa check in with the two to find out that they patched things up and that they’re working on a friendship together. Nick and Vanessa also bring up, in their words, the “keyboard warriors” that inundated Carlton and Diamond’s social media accounts with hate after the show aired. In response, Husband-and-Wife Lachey painted Carlton and Diamond as victims and the keyboard warriors as overboard psychopaths.
But amid all this finger-pointing and blaming, Nick, Vanessa, and Love Is Blind’s producers failed to recognize the show’s own accountability in creating this ugly patch of television.
We aren’t privy to the details of what Love Is Blind’s producers and casting directors told the contestants, but the show didn’t feature any other bisexual or LGBTQ contestants aside from Carlton. The show was also pretty stereotypically heteronormative in the way it showcased its relationships, the traditions of marriage (wedding dresses, bachelor and bachelorette parties, etc.), and the contestants (e.g. all the women talking about what they’re looking for in a man).
When Carlton came out to Diamond, she was in shock. Her reaction seemed to indicate that she believed the men and women on the show were all heterosexual.
Granted, Diamond’s behavior toward Carlton (asking him about whether or not he could be monogamous, and whether she could be the love of his life if he also was attracted to men) fits a common pattern of stigma that bisexual people face from both gay and heterosexual men and women. Carlton’s aggressive behavior toward Diamond was equally sad and hard to watch.
But it’s hard not to see their behavior as reactions to a situation created by the circumstances on the show. Rather than combating the stereotypes against bisexual people, Love Is Blind leaned into and teased Carlton’s sexuality and Diamond’s blindside as one of its major plot points.
And it felt a little slimy that the show was then chastising its audience for its reaction to this couple’s heated moment, a reaction its producers and casting directors were seemingly looking for. There’s no doubt a great reality show can be made about the stigma hardships that bisexual people and their partners deal with. But judging by the words Nick and Vanessa used to describe Carlton (“courageous” and “brave”) it seems like the people behind Love Is Blind thought they did something admirable. But this wasn’t it.
—AAS
Loser: Barnett and his bad jacket
What’s black and white and shines for all the world to see? The reality that Matt Barnett and Amber Barnett are going to get divorced someday. Also, Barnett’s shimmery floral (???) print jacket, which is just awful.
For Vanderpump Rules fans, Barnett has some serious Jax Taylor vibes — fun and oddly appealing in a bro-y way, but also immature, selfish, and short-sighted — and this jacket reinforces that. A man who thinks this blazer is a good idea simply is not ready for marriage.
Barnett and his similarly stubborn bride might be learning how to party together, but it feels as though Barnett still isn’t totally sure what’s befallen him, namely that he’s legally bound to the woman beside him and wearing a nightclub’s bathroom floor as a coat. Amber drops casually that she nearly divorced him over some unspecified spat, but Barnett says they’re just having so much fun. Best of luck to all three of them!
—MH
Loser: The format of the reunion
Aside from the confrontation between Amber and Jessica, the reunion was pretty much a snoozer. Everyone else said they got along with their exes, and the married couples — Amber and Barnett, Lauren and Cameron — said they enjoyed married life.
It seemed as if the contestants all signed a non-aggression pact prior to the reunion. Or, because of the year between filming and airing, perhaps all the emotions and hard feelings mellowed out.
Regardless, the reunion seemed to stall because they kept addressing the contestants as couples. It made for ho-hum, generic answers like the aforementioned getting along quips and Lauren and Cameron telling us how nice it is to be married to one another.
Curiously, the most compelling and authentic moments of the reunion were when contestants were addressed as individuals. Amber gave her candid thoughts about Jessica and didn’t totally accept Jessica’s apology; it was the highlight of the show by far.
It would’ve been more interesting to see the same kind of insight into, say, how Kenny was feeling when he told production to turn the cameras off, or what Kelly or Lauren thought about what Jessica had done to Mark. Instead, we got Kenny’s feelings in the context of Kelly, and Mark’s feelings about Jessica from Mark himself, all producing boring answers. Remember, these are men who were jilted at the altar, and Mark, bless his heart, did not see Jessica doing an entire color guard routine with a giant red flag this season. Are they really the best people to give unblemished, honest opinions about their ex-fiancées? Probably not.
—AAS
Loser: Our Messica
Oh, dear Jessica. Someone had to be the villain of Love Is Blind, and it was always going to be the woman on the wrong side of 30 who feeds wine to her dog. In the spirit of solidarity, I will say that after a few glasses myself, I also speak in an annoying, higher-pitched voice.
At the reunion, Jessica appears, both in terms of her body language and actual words, to have been thoroughly worn down by the fallout from her time in the experiment. She says how tough it all is to watch, refusing to look directly at footage of herself, and how much she didn’t like what she saw on screen. She can’t seem to take responsibility for her feelings for Barnett (“I didn’t even feel that way at the time,” she insists), but she is appropriately chagrined about her past behavior, especially how much of it was fueled by the alcohol her dog didn’t get to.
This was, perhaps, a learning experience for Jessica! She attempts to apologize to blond Amber — whose expectations for how Jessica should have behaved seem, frankly, unrealistic — but not to Mark. Mark and Jessica agree that they wish they had had more time but, both single now, neither makes a move to reconcile. She’s moved on, to Los Angeles, and once she gets rid of that green turtleneck, she’ll surely be on a better path.
—MH