In case you hadn’t noticed, every conservative talking head has taken the side of Baldoni, who’s accused Lively and her team (including her husband, Ryan Reynolds) of extortion, defamation, and invasion of privacy. In the last several months, Megan Kelly has gone out of her way to only entertain Baldoni’s allegations on her show, while continuing to disparage Lively at every possible opportunity. Joe Rogan and Candace Owens, too, have weighed in on the case multiple times, with Owens saying of Lively: “She has proven herself not to be a kind person. And that’s largely due to the fact that she is a modern feminist.” The Guardian writes:
In the same way the “manosphere” has used male-oriented sports and fitness content as a gateway into far-right politics, some are seeing this new celebrity focus as a way to draw women down the same path – and calling it “the womanosphere”. Taking to heart Andrew Breitbart’s famous dictum that “politics is downstream from culture”, the right’s goal has long been to “take back the culture”, as self-tagged #ConservativeInfluencer Abby Shapiro (sister of rightwing commentator Ben) proclaimed in a 2020 YouTube video titled “Conservative women, it’s our time.”
While it’s troubling that the manosphere and its allies wield millions of followers against whatever woman dares accuse a man of misconduct, chief among the Guardian’s most disturbing findings is the use of online bots in support of Baldoni.
Zhouhan Chen, founder of social media data analysts Information Tracer, told the Guardian that he’s been tracking Lively v. Baldoni social media mentions the same way he investigated the Depp v. Heard online impressions. According to his analysis of the top 500 tweets, the bulk of public bias that’s being pushed is pro-Baldoni. As in Depp v. Heard, hashtags like #BlakeLivelyIsALiar and #JusticeForJustinBaldoni are being posted “by a ratio of 1:150 to 1:300, depending on which metric you use.” However, when considering the age of the accounts and the number of times they have posted in favor of Baldoni, Chen noted: “I would estimate more than 80% of pro-Justin Baldoni posts are inorganic.” Meaning, this is yet another example of a bought-and-paid-for pile-on.
Frankly, the piece made me wonder if this case is already worse than Depp v. Heard. Let’s recall a similar report from Bot Sentinel circa 2022, after the trial concluded. According to an analysis of more than 14,000 tweets that included one of four viral hashtags (#AmberHeardIsAnAbuser, #AmberHeardLsAnAbuser, #AmberHeardIsALiar, and #AmberHeardLsALiar) characterizing Heard as deceptive or abusive of Depp, the report revealed that 24.4% of accounts tied to these tweets were created just months before the trial. One in five of those same accounts appeared to be “dedicated to spamming.” Further, users who posted anything even vaguely supportive of Heard on social media were subjected to a deluge of online harassment, often from newly created accounts specifically dedicated to vilifying Heard. Sound familiar?
The piece was published on Tuesday, and apart from a few odd TikToks (from the pro-Lively contingent, I’ll add), I haven’t seen much discourse about its findings. Now, I’ve never been much of a fan of Lively—she lost me with the whole plantation wedding in 2012. However, I’m terrified by the coordinated hate campaigns against any woman who publicly accuses a man of harm. These truths can and must coexist. Otherwise, the cycle continues and the next time another woman accuses a different man of misconduct, we’ll refer to it as Baldoni v. Lively 2.0. I can’t think of anything more bleak.
Like what you just read? You’ve got great taste. Subscribe to Jezebel, and for $5 a month or $50 a year, you’ll get access to a bunch of subscriber benefits, including getting to read the next article (and all the ones after that) ad-free. Plus, you’ll be supporting independent journalism—which, can you even imagine not supporting independent journalism in times like these? Yikes.
