I Think Taylor Lorenz Was Right to Interview Libs of TikTok, and Here's Why
These weren't softball questions.
Hello, readers. Parker here.
Over the weekend, The Washington Post published a story about how Libs of TikTok, the Twitter account that exists chiefly to harass LGBTQ people, became a political powerhouse in Oklahoma schools. The story, written by tech columnist Taylor Lorenz, came in the wake of Nex Benedict’s death, which itself came a day after being beaten by classmates.
It’s a good article, and there’s really not much more to it than that. The piece links Libs of TikTok proprietor Chaya Raichik’s extreme tactics to the epidemic of bullying in Oklahoma schools and includes statements from local trans people and activist groups. As far as mainstream media coverage goes, this is about the best anyone can hope for. It’s certainly better than some of the Post’s past coverage of trans issues:
But first, here’s the part of the newsletter where I ask you to consider signing up for the free version if you’re new here and ask existing free subscribers to consider upgrading to the paid version. Now through the end of the month, you can get 25% off subscriptions by clicking this link:
Somewhat more controversial has been Lorenz’s decision to publish the full 53:14 interview with Raichik online.
Lorenz published the raw interview on her unmonetized, personal YouTube page, not as a product, but as a behind-the-scenes look at the interview process, undercutting Raichik’s ability to selectively clip it out of context without rebuttal:
On Twitter, Lorenz explained:
One reason I chose to publish the full interview and not just certain comments for my story on the harms Chaya’s rhetoric is causing LGBTQ ppl is bc I *knew* she’d try to chop the footage up as much as she could to push her nonsense. Watch the full interview, it speaks for itself
She can do all the desperate choppy editing she wants to try and save face, but once you watch the full video it falls right apart.
In response to people asking why Lorenz would agree to meet Raichik in person at all, with some saying that she should have simply sent questions via email in a “take it or leave it” kind of situation, Vice editor Tim Marchman explained this in a Bluesky thread:
I want to spell this out because I think a lot of people, esp. younger ones, might not understand it, but there are legal reasons why you need to at least try to interview, say, a fascist propagandist if you’re reporting on them, and tactical considerations governing what you do with what they say.
The legal issue is that if you are reporting information about someone and don’t ask them for comment, it is much easier for them to advance even a spurious defamation claim. This is one reason you see the boilerplate claim that so and so didn’t respond to a request for comment.
A judge, in looking over a defamation claim, looks at the article itself. If they see you at least tried to give the allegedly defamed person a chance to dispute the information you reported, things go much easier for you.
Consider as context that if you write for a national paper owned by one of the richest men alive, you are a magnet for defamation claims—especially from fascist propagandists, who have successfully weaponized such claims to shut down critical reporting.
If you do get an interview with the fascist propagandist, they’re likely to use it to troll you and to claim to their supporters, once you publish your story, that they were taken out of context and that you failed to publish all the clever things they said.
For this reason, it’s not an unknown tactic to run a full transcript or video of the interview as a defense against these tactics.
The point here is that all this is a necessary part of reporting critically on fascist propagandists. The choice isn’t between interviewing them or not if you’re reporting new info about them, it’s between reporting new info them or not doing so.
The video has trans people divided. Some argue that posting it only gives Raichik more attention and a “platform” for her hate. Others, like me, see value in it.
Here are just a few clips that Media Matters have picked up on from the interview, including one where Raichik admits to knowingly defaming a random trans person:
“‘Is there a law against lying?’ Libs of TikTok creator Chaya Raichik refuses to remove post accusing innocent trans woman of school shooting” (Media Matters, Ari Drennen, 2/26/24)
“‘Not all cultures are equal’: Libs of TikTok creator endorses great replacement conspiracy theory” (Media Matters, 2/24/24)
“Chaya Raichik on Oklahoma: ‘I was there once. They have, unfortunately, a lot of wokeness in their red state and I'm trying to help.’” (Media Matters, 2/24/24)
There’s no “right” or “wrong” answer here. It’s entirely subjective. I just see value in this information being made available.
I think
atmade some good points about the value of the article and interview here:As clip after clip of Raichik’s bumbling non-answers was shared across Twitter, the discourse quickly coalesced around the basic question of how someone so influential could at the same time be such a painfully public moron.
The answer, of course, is “easily,” as you can see for yourself in the video … .
Think about what it is that Raichik and her LibsOfTikTok account actually does: She finds (or more likely is just sent) examples of queer people simply existing in the world, and then blasts those examples out to her three million followers on X with some uninspired wrapper text about how bad and crazy the person is. That’s it. Nothing more. She’s done her part as a stochastic terrorist—a term, it’s worth noting, she has embraced. Raichik’s power is not that of a sculptor wielding a hammer and chisel to hew some coherent conservative worldview from a block of stone. She doesn’t actually create anything, and as such, has never been forced to justify—or even articulate—her whole deal. (Relatedly: reporter Anna Merlan called Raychik’s interview skills “like watching a Roomba try to get out of a corner” which I just through was a pretty great line.)
Raichik coming off as extremely stupid makes a lot of sense when you consider that you don’t need to be smart to point a bazooka. And that, ultimately, is all she does— she loads up her account with someone’s personal life as ammunition and blasts it out to her millions of followers. That she’s considered a genuine “force” in the culture wars belies the fact that she is, in essence, a pass-through—one with an enormous audience, to be sure, but not someone who needs to rub their brain cells together to feel important. Raichik seems perfectly content to let other, equally odious but eminently smarter, ghouls actually dictate what the right-wing culture war priorities and talking points should be. She’s simply a hammer so caught up in an ego-tripping search for nails that she can’t imagine a world beyond a flat piece of wood.
Anyway, what are your thoughts on the article and video? Please keep the discussion respectful.
More reading on the death of Nex Benedict:
“A cop hung up on me when I asked questions about Nex Benedict” (The Handbasket, Marisa Kabas, 2/26/24)
“Nex Benedict's mom raises doubts about police statements: It's a ‘big cover’” (, Judd Legum, 2/23/24)
“LGBTQ+ Leaders Call For DOJ To Investigate Nex's Death” (, Erin Reed, 2/22/24)
“Chaya Raichik Was Appointed To ‘Make Schools Safer’ In Oklahoma; Now A Trans Teen Is Dead.” (, Erin Reed, 2/20/24)
That’s it for me today. As always, thank you for reading.
Parker
I definitely agree with you. There is value in posting the video. It allows people to show others exactly what she's doing and how little actual substance there is behind what she is doing. Almost every question was met with a redirect or a non-sequitur, and the actual answers were flimsy as wet tissue paper.
I agree there's some value in an interview that demonstrates that Chaya Raichik is an idiot, but I will also point out that we have many, many interviews that show Donald Trump is an idiot, and it doesn't seem to have done his career much harm.