"Where is Britney?" - New York Magazine Exposé Out Now

[SlayOut]

After giving the article a read through, I think they do a good job at painting these Free-Britney 2.0 conspiracy theorists for what they are. I appreciate that Jordan’s insights and words serve as a counterweight to the obvious outlandish claims some of these weirdos make.

I guess I’m somewhat confused by everyone’s reaction to the article though?  Like is there something I’m not picking up, because not a lot of people seem to be enjoying it… lol it’s been a long day of work, go easy on me

[canwesynchronize]

  I cannot believe they posted this article.  Jordan's parts were the only sensible ones, the rest is all baseless. 

[Ghoulia]

4 hours ago, Jordan Miller said:

I said what I said

When I did my first interview in March, I was not under the impression that ~Free Britney 2.0~ was going to take center stage. That became apparent to me in my most-recent followup interview this month.

Some of the things I'm reading in this article are cringe and appalling. Some people can't see the forest from the trees (maybe we're all a little guilty of that in our own right), but dayum. Let Britney enjoy her newfound freedom. 

I liked the article and the “OG Free Britney Crowd” comments in particular. ❤️

[Ghoulia]

1 hour ago, SlayOut said:

After giving the article a read through, I think they do a good job at painting these Free-Britney 2.0 conspiracy theorists for what they are. I appreciate that Jordan’s insights and words serve as a counterweight to the obvious outlandish claims some of these weirdos make.

I guess I’m somewhat confused by everyone’s reaction to the article though?  Like is there something I’m not picking up, because not a lot of people seem to be enjoying it… lol it’s been a long day of work, go easy on me

Idk I felt the same way. I liked the article! It painted Banons as unhinged & harmful and was kind towards Britney. 

[G-unit]

I’m dying at Kathy Hilton’s leg is missing.  She is standing behind a pew in a picture that was taken from an angle…people are so stupid 

[SlayOut]

14 minutes ago, G-unit said:

I’m dying at Kathy Hilton’s leg is missing.  She is standing behind a pew in a picture that was taken from an angle…people are so stupid 

The same people who created the AI Britney we follow on IG had to borrow Kathy’s leg to perfect their AI algorithm  The AI techs haven’t given it back to her tho

[Jordan Miller]

2 hours ago, SlayOut said:

After giving the article a read through, I think they do a good job at painting these Free-Britney 2.0 conspiracy theorists for what they are. I appreciate that Jordan’s insights and words serve as a counterweight to the obvious outlandish claims some of these weirdos make.

I guess I’m somewhat confused by everyone’s reaction to the article though?  Like is there something I’m not picking up, because not a lot of people seem to be enjoying it… lol it’s been a long day of work, go easy on me

Good call out! They do do a good job at showing off the unhinged group of fans who refuse to believe she’s free. But at the same time, it’s like… why? What are we to take away from this? 

[very_urban]

53 minutes ago, G-unit said:

I’m dying at Kathy Hilton’s leg is missing.  She is standing behind a pew in a picture that was taken from an angle…people are so stupid 

And that bit about her thumb being a different colour, completely ignoring that it's in the shadow.

[Jordan Miller]

1 hour ago, canwesynchronize said:

  I cannot believe they posted this article.  Jordan's parts were the only sensible ones, the rest is all baseless. 

[Jup1ter]

EW so is this an article about BANON and the crazies from tiktok?

Not gonna bother to read that one

[SlayOut]

55 minutes ago, Jordan Miller said:

Good call out! They do do a good job at showing off the unhinged group of fans who refuse to believe she’s free. But at the same time, it’s like… why? What are we to take away from this? 

Maybe because we’re so aware of the tensions in the fanbase caused by these conspiracies, it feels like the article may be giving some of the Free Britney 2.0 folks a platform.

I would like to think, though, that Britney fans are not the primary audience for the article. Rather, maybe, it’s directed towards the casual fan or someone who has tangentially heard about Free Britney but hasn’t followed every development since the conservatorship ended. I think in a landscape where social media algorithms and the ability to gain a following gives any random person clout and authority, it’s important to actually push back on these people and establish a baseline of facts. It’s also important to direct people (who may be curious and looking for information) to as best a knowledge source as possible, since many of these sources (Free Britney 2.0 folks) aren’t the most reliable narrator.

Like why does [redacted] have authority to make claims about the status of Britney’s freedom? Because he reads social media posts and various articles for 30 hours a week?

Spoiler

Pray for my wig

So many of these theories are based on opinions and half-truths, but rarely on facts. It’s important that the journalist called out the contradiction that Free Britney 2.0 folks claim Team Con is trying to invent a reason to put Britney back in a conservatorship, despite the fact that, according to those same people, she’s still in a conservatorship. Like do they have an answer for this? Which situation is it? Is it the one that fits their narrative? Does one pick and choose whichever theory to use at their convenience?

Idk, I think the article underscores that yes, there may be a lot that we don’t know, or isn’t clear to us. But just because we don’t know things, doesn’t mean that we should go out of our way to invent facts or scenarios that fill in the gaps. Because, in my opinion, that does more harm than good.

[britneyluv]

1 hour ago, SlayOut said:

Maybe because we’re so aware of the tensions in the fanbase caused by these conspiracies, it feels like the article may be giving some of the Free Britney 2.0 folks a platform.

I would like to think, though, that Britney fans are not the primary audience for the article. Rather, maybe, it’s directed towards the casual fan or someone who has tangentially heard about Free Britney but hasn’t followed every development since the conservatorship ended. I think in a landscape where social media algorithms and the ability to gain a following gives any random person clout and authority, it’s important to actually push back on these people and establish a baseline of facts. It’s also important to direct people (who may be curious and looking for information) to as best a knowledge source as possible, since many of these sources (Free Britney 2.0 folks) aren’t the most reliable narrator.

Like why does [redacted] have authority to make claims about the status of Britney’s freedom? Because he reads social media posts and various articles for 30 hours a week?

  Reveal hidden contents

Pray for my wig

So many of these theories are based on opinions and half-truths, but rarely on facts. It’s important that the journalist called out the contradiction that Free Britney 2.0 folks claim Team Con is trying to invent a reason to put Britney back in a conservatorship, despite the fact that, according to those same people, she’s still in a conservatorship. Like do they have an answer for this? Which situation is it? Is it the one that fits their narrative? Does one pick and choose whichever theory to use at their convenience?

Idk, I think the article underscores that yes, there may be a lot that we don’t know, or isn’t clear to us. But just because we don’t know things, doesn’t mean that we should go out of our way to invent facts or scenarios that fill in the gaps. Because, in my opinion, that does more harm than good.

I actually think it does the opposite. If anything, it acknowledges the crazy conspiracy theories, and then does a great job explaining why they're a bunch of nuts. It lulls the reader into a sense of "hmm I've kind of heard these crazy things, and omg but wait are these actually true?!" to poking through all the holes like a flimsy piece of Swiss cheese.

I mean... "When she's not working at her job in corporate finance or posting on her dog's TikTok, 23-year-old Anita Datta moonlights as the host of one of the largest - and most extreme - Free Britney 2.0 TikTok accounts, @BritneyIsNotFree.

The posts about the wedding were the cherry on top - 

Anitta: Britney's hand blends into Sam's jacket! NYMag: She was wearing white fingerless gloves you idiot.

Anitta: Uh but Kathy Hilton (the mother of one of Britney's friends) was at the wedding!! WHY? And why is her leg missing?! NYMag: It was obscured by the church pew you moron. But sure, ask your followers for a reasonable explanation like you're writing to the UN for an answer to how to solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict 

I'm just glad a major outlet published something that basically says, "Yes, we don't know exactly what's going on with Britney right now. Maybe she is struggling, but let's lay out specifically what the conspiracy theories are and why they're nonsense. Britney will speak when she's ready. In the meantime, MYB and leave her alone."

[Psammead]

Well, she called the conservatorship the biggest celebrity scandal of the 21st century, which is good. She said Matthew Rosengart wouldn't speak on the record, which was interesting, because did he say something off the record? At least her tone isn't two-faced, if you know what I mean.

But ultimately, it's a pretty long article that gives people who seem desperately in need of welfare checks for themselves a lot of space. And I'm not interested in what they say. So many angles to this story, but journalists just won't touch the main ones: Where is Britney's money? And when are Jamie and Lou going to prison?

You can't get it from pop culture journalists, who helped get Britney into this mess. They have a lot to answer for. One of the financial papers has to investigate. They were the only ones who published anything critical about the conservatorship even back then.

[BSfan4Ever]

I don't understand English I'm glad I don't read this bulls  h  i t 

[OhBobby]

4 hours ago, britneyluv said:

I actually think it does the opposite. If anything, it acknowledges the crazy conspiracy theories, and then does a great job explaining why they're a bunch of nuts. It lulls the reader into a sense of "hmm I've kind of heard these crazy things, and omg but wait are these actually true?!" to poking through all the holes like a flimsy piece of Swiss cheese.

I mean... "When she's not working at her job in corporate finance or posting on her dog's TikTok, 23-year-old Anita Datta moonlights as the host of one of the largest - and most extreme - Free Britney 2.0 TikTok accounts, @BritneyIsNotFree.

The posts about the wedding were the cherry on top - 

Anitta: Britney's hand blends into Sam's jacket! NYMag: She was wearing white fingerless gloves you idiot.

Anitta: Uh but Kathy Hilton (the mother of one of Britney's friends) was at the wedding!! WHY? And why is her leg missing?! NYMag: It was obscured by the church pew you moron. But sure, ask your followers for a reasonable explanation like you're writing to the UN for an answer to how to solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict 

I'm just glad a major outlet published something that basically says, "Yes, we don't know exactly what's going on with Britney right now. Maybe she is struggling, but let's lay out specifically what the conspiracy theories are and why they're nonsense. Britney will speak when she's ready. In the meantime, MYB and leave her alone."

 

I agree. I'd say that this is a good article. Don't shoot the messenger. The BAnon movement is big enough on Tik-Tok to write about it. The NYT doesn't give them any credits, au contraire. It shows us how unhinged they are. "The tricky part is that it's impossible to stop speculating once you've decided nothing you see and hear is true." It questions our ability to see and hear what we want to see and hear.

[Hamelia]

3 hours ago, Psammead said:

But ultimately, it's a pretty long article that gives people who seem desperately in need of welfare checks for themselves a lot of space. And I'm not interested in what they say. So many angles to this story, but journalists just won't touch the main ones: Where is Britney's money? And when are Jamie and Lou going to prison?

 

I read the article pretty fast and superficially, and I thought it was way too long. By the time I came to Jordan's comments, most casual readers would have long given up. Rebecca gave way too much space to the conspirators which makes them important. Do they really come across as deluded? Maybe, but I thought that before. Would someone else think, yeah, the most deranged among them are nuts, but some of them may have a point. That is my problem with the article.

Maybe a serious journalist will pick up the money trail questions at the trial. 

[Switchy]

13 minutes ago, Hamelia said:

I read the article pretty fast and superficially, and I thought it was way too long. By the time I came to Jordan's comments, most casual readers would have long given up. Rebecca gave way too much space to the conspirators which makes them important. Do they really come across as deluded? Maybe, but I thought that before. Would someone else think, yeah, the most deranged among them are nuts, but some of them may have a point. That is my problem with the article.

Maybe a serious journalist will pick up the money trail questions at the trial. 

This was my issue as well! I just ended up skimming the article because it was way too much of the conspiracies and the people behind them. If you want to shut something like this down, you talk about them and not to them. Don't give them a platform or the time to spread their nonsense. 

[Benjamyn]

Lol.. The main pic says LOUcifer in grey, quite prominently! Love that lol

[Eternalhouse]

See i told ya!!

It says 'WAKE UP' lol. 

Again with various nonsense that concludes to nonsense.🤣

[djkeith23]

I will not be reading this, all nonsense, moving on!