There’s nothing new about the presence of weight stigma, diet culture, and body image in our media environment. Recently, it felt like body positivity and size inclusivity were becoming the new norm. But the rise of GLP-1 drugs is changing things again – not just in people’s options for losing and managing weight, but in the cultural conversation about our bodies.

In this episode, Jena and Michelle look at the conversation around GLP-1s through a media literacy lens. They unpack pharmaceutical advertising, celebrity endorsements, bias in healthcare, science journalism, and all those “What I Eat in a Day” videos on social media. We’re all getting a ton of mixed messages, and it’s a lot to try to make sense of!

◾

Find us online!

• Michelle Ciulla Lipkin

• Jena Wuu

Read our writing about weight stigma in media:

• Michelle Ciulla Lipkin’s letter to the NAMLE community, May 2023.

Check out our recs:

• Dr. Joshua Wolrich on Instagram

• The Full Plate Podcast #150: Medical care without weight stigma with Dr. Mara Gordon, 2025.

• “Freedom” from fatness: Why GLP-1s go after Black bodies, Code Switch, 2026.

Learn more about Nathan Fielder’s new film, You Can See Everything:

• Elizabeth Holmes, convicted of fraud, is more fascinating than ever, KQED, 2022.

• Who is Elizabeth Holmes? What is “You Can See Everything” about?, Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC), 2026.

• “You Can See Everything” Review: Nathan Fielder’s documentary about Elizabeth Holmes is a shameless, fascinating, reality-TV-eats-its-tail look at entitled duplicity, Variety, 2026.

Learn more about Harry Styles’ and others’ musical residencies:

• Bad Bunny to Celine Dion to Backstreet Boys: Musical residencies are going global – boating tourism, making millions and healing fans, The Hollywood Reporter, 2026.

• How residencies took over the music industry, The New York Times, 2026.

• The concert trend forcing fans to pay way more, Vox, 2026.The Hollywood Reporter, 2026.

Learn more about GLP-1 and pharmaceutical advertising:

• Drug ads face new scrutiny at FDA and on Hill, Axios, 2026.

• French regulators fine Novo, Lilly over GLP-1 campaigns, Medscape, 2026.

• How Serena Williams saved her own life, Elle, 2022.

• Serena Williams and Ro, Truth in Advertising, 2026.

• With TV drug ads, what you see is not necessarily what you get, Journal of Health Economics and Outcomes Research, 2024.

Audio clip sources:

• Wegovy Super Bowl LX ad “A New Way” delivers humor and honest conversations, FanReviews (DailyMotion), 2026.

• Serena Williams and Oprah on deciding to take GLP-1 medications, Oprah (YouTube), 2026.

• GLP-1s are a lot weirder than anyone thought, The Ezra Klein Show (YouTube), 2026.

• The dangers of diet drugs: Behind the GLP-1 weight-loss hype with Ragen Chastain, Rethinking Wellness, 2024.

• Lori (TikTok), 2025.

• Sonya Sed (TikTok), 2026.

• Nilani D (TikTok), 2026.

• Derek (TikTok), 2026.

• Dear Media (TikTok), 2026.

◾

About Did You See? with Jena and Michelle

Did you see that? Whether it’s in the news or pop culture, in print or online, we are living in a media overload. It’s a lot to process!

Did You See? is for anyone looking for space to pause and work through the media moments shaping how we see and understand the world.

Find us on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you listen to podcasts. ◾

🎧 Listen | 5:14 mins

A lot has changed since Mark Zuckerberg’s infamous testimony in 2018 before the US Congress. His smirky response, “Senator, we run ads,” became the meme heard around the world, as legislators were mocked for being out of touch with the technology they were supposed to keep in check.

Eight years later, the tide has turned. Keeping young people off of social media is the latest trend. From Australia to Europe, governments are passing laws to ban social media for teens. And Meta’s recent settlement over alleged harms to youth – the latest in a string of lawsuits across the United States – has been widely celebrated, correctly, as a win for holding Big Tech accountable.

But fixing tech isn’t the same thing as improving youth mental health.

There’s no question that young people are struggling. A third of American adults under 30 rate their mental health poorly, more than double the proportion of adults over 50, according to a Pew Research study from April.

What’s also clear is that Gen Z — once called the Google Generation — grew up with social media and has a very different relationship with it than older people. With Google starting in 1998 and Facebook in 2004, the platforms are practically Gen Zers themselves.

And there is research to support links between social media use and well-being. A 2025 study in Nature found that adolescents with existing mental health issues were more likely to spend time on social media than those without.

Put it all together, and the answer seems clear: Fix the technology, and we can get back on track.

I get why that’s appealing. For a long time, I believed it too.

I moved to Silicon Valley in 2011, as tech’s “disruption” era was taking off. I arrived as wide-eyed as a newbie in Hollywood, with $20 in her pocket and a guitar on her back. From San Francisco to San Jose, idealists like me flocked to coworking spaces and filled up cafes, convinced that technology would be a Great Equalizer where society was broken and power was uneven. Uber could break up corrupt taxi systems. Bumble could give women power in dating. Facebook could platform the voiceless.

By the mid-2010s, the shine was already wearing off. The same platforms that expanded access and opportunities also created new risks and exacerbated old ones. Accordingly, I moved from building new products to enforcing safeguards on them. After Meta’s Cambridge Analytica scandal, I joined the company, still believing that technology could be a net positive to society; we just needed to design it better and put the right guardrails in place.

But after years of changing company policies, testing new products, tweaking features, and funding programs, I had to face the truth:

Tech is powerful. But it cannot fix society’s problems.

When it comes to the well-being of the young people at the heart of the social media debate, research points to a much broader set of contributing factors. Candice Odgers, a professor at the University of California, Irvine, calls caregivers’ mental health “the strongest predictor of children’s mental health and life chances.” She points to the rise in parental loss among American children over the past two decades, driven largely by firearm deaths and drug overdoses.

And a 2024 review in the Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Nursing examined 56 peer-reviewed studies on adolescent anxiety. It identified several contributing factors, including family dynamics, crippling academic pressure, climate change, and political uncertainty.

These problems won’t get solved because it’s harder to get on Instagram. And they’re not problems that Mark Zuckerberg can fix, nor would anyone want him to.

The good news is that some solutions can be surprisingly simple, like being present and spending time together. According to the American Psychological Association, having strong relationships with adults is “the single most powerful force for adolescent mental health.” And non-parental figures – like coaches, teachers, and other mentors – matter as much as parents and family members.

Platforms absolutely deserve to be scrutinized, but ultimately, they’re not responsible for the well-being of the young people in our lives. We are. And we owe them more. ◾

I knew of Rafiq Copeland long before we ever met. I was managing Meta’s global information ecosystem program, and he was working to improve social media for some of the world’s most vulnerable and underserved people. Those displaced from their homes, affected by crisis or conflict, or who speak languages that platforms don’t often support. For these communities, having access to reliable information can be a matter of life or death.

Rafiq and I sat down to talk about the people that experts and institutions serve, and why human connection remains at the heart of building trust. Answers are edited for length and clarity.

◾

Jena Wuu: Hi Rafiq! So tell me, what is an information integrity expert? How did you get into this work?

Rafiq Copeland: I got into it in a roundabout kind of way. I was already doing humanitarian work in the Dadaab refugee camp in Kenya. It was 2011, and there was a famine in the Horn of Africa. The camp was expanding very rapidly with thousands of people coming in every day.

Internews was interested in building a radio station at the camp, and I thought it was such an incredible idea that filled a huge need. The camp had half a million people in it, with no formal communication channels of any kind. That created huge problems with rumors, which led to security problems. There was also a lack of accountability because refugees weren’t able to express any issues themselves.

I had worked in community radio throughout my studies. I was actually into podcasting before podcasting became a thing. So when I heard about this idea to build a radio station, I said yeah, I think you should do it, and then you should hire me to come and help run it. And that’s what happened. The radio station is still going, which is fantastic. The camp’s still there, which is not as good.

Ever since then, I’ve been working in that space: the intersection between information and accountability, mostly within crisis-affected communities or in contexts where accessing and sharing information is challenging, due to authoritarianism or something else.

JW: How does it work when you’re building communications in different cultures and languages that you don’t necessarily speak?

That’s a good question. I lived in South Sudan, and then I was in Myanmar for four and a half years. And I’ve worked in other places as well for shorter periods of time.

It seems crazy to be there advocating for the importance of meaningful communication when I don’t speak the language myself. That’s more common than you might think. In almost every case I’ve worked, at least one of the key parties shaping the flow of information comes from outside the local context. For example, in humanitarian response, that’s the UN agencies and NGOs providing aid and services to people affected by crisis. And in the last 10 years of my career, it’s been tech companies that operate online platforms.

So a lot of it is really about trusting the people on the ground experiencing events, and being an intermediary between them and those in a position to provide information. The people that should be more accountable to the communities they’re serving. My role is really to try and get those people in the room, and then step back and let them have their stake.

JW: That’s a pragmatic way to go about it. And as trust shifts from centralized authorities to individuals, it’s really going to be about community organizing and empowering people to reach others.

RC: I think that’s right. For our first broadcast at the radio station, we needed someone who could answer some questions from the community, and we needed a Somali speaker. There was no one from the UN agency responsible for the camps who spoke Somali and was in a high enough position that they would be allowed to come on the radio. So there were half a million Somali speakers in the camp, and no one who was authorized to speak to them. It was able to be rectified, but that was an embarrassing situation.

It’s been 15 years since then, and there’s still a lot of work to do. But there has been a lot of progress around this kind of engagement with affected communities.

JW: We first met while I was working at Meta. From my perspective, Internews was a very important partner to the company – but I’m curious to hear about your experience of it.

RC: My first real engagement with tech platforms was after the Rohingya genocide in 2017. By now, it’s well-known that Facebook played a role in inciting the violence there. Even more so, the platform was being manipulated to create an enabling environment for a really toxic situation.

That had been documented for years by local civil society representatives. It became my role to help Facebook engage with those local experts, who really understood the context in a deep and meaningful way.

By early 2018, the Rohingya genocide became an international story. When Mark Zuckerberg testified to Congress that year, I think Myanmar was the only country besides the US that he was asked about in the hearing.

And all of a sudden, there was a lot of interest from Facebook to engage with the issues. And a lot of really smart people were hired.

JW: Yes, press is always an effective motivator. Some of my closest teammates joined Meta (then known as Facebook) around that time, who specifically had humanitarian backgrounds.

RC: It became evident to me that part of the reason why situations like Myanmar were allowed to happen was that the companies just didn’t have a clear understanding of what was going on, and what their own role was in it.

That’s not to minimize their responsibility. In many cases, they’d been told about it. But still, they didn’t really understand.

That was true in many complicated contexts all over the world. The situation in Myanmar was being replicated elsewhere, and there were lots of cases where we were trying to facilitate engagement and help the platforms understand what was going on, so they could do better to keep people safe.

JW: What changes did you want Facebook to make?

RC: There were certainly problems with content policy, which were discussed at great length. But in many cases, the policy isn’t the problem; it’s enforcement. We can talk about the policy all you like, but if you don’t enforce it, then the policy doesn’t really matter.

Enforcement was difficult for a whole range of reasons. In many cases, the problem was language capacity. When you have low language capacity, automated detection doesn’t work so well. So you’re reliant on users to report policy violations. And in many cultures, people just don’t feel comfortable reporting stuff. They might be concerned about getting in trouble – that the person they’re reporting might find out. Of course, the more authoritarian the country, the more likely that people feel nervous about reporting.

And in many cases, Facebook’s reporting features weren’t even localized into the local language. So unless you spoke English, you functionally could not report something, even if you wanted to.

Essentially, you’d wind up with an unmoderated platform because the automated detection doesn’t work, and people weren’t able to report issues either. As a result, nothing was getting flagged for human moderators to review.

Early on in Myanmar, I think Facebook only had two reviewers for the whole country. There was a lot of criticism about that, but that was actually an appropriate number for the amount of content getting flagged for review. Addressing the real issues was much more complicated than just hiring more Burmese speaking moderators.

JW: That’s one of the challenges with these huge global platforms that are built on very Western-centric, even San Francisco-centric culture. When I worked at Uber, we relied on trip ratings because there was no other way for us to know when there were issues. But people are scared to report, or to get someone else in trouble. It’s a lot of responsibility to put on users.

RC: And then in other cases, you can have the opposite problem, where people massively over-report things that they just don’t like or things that they disagree with. So how do you calibrate all of that?

JW: So true, I definitely saw that at Facebook. Just wondering… did you end up with a favorite platform based on your experiences working with them?

RC: I had a real love-hate relationship with Facebook. It was where we saw the most negative impact at that stage, although YouTube gives them a real run for their money.

But Facebook was also the platform that engaged the most with organizations. They really did far more than any of the other companies to address the problems. I mean, the bar is low. But I met and worked closely with a lot of people at Facebook that were really doing their best to make positive change.

That was something that surprised me. The companies seem so monolithic, but then you find there are people within the companies that are really fighting internal fights and investing a lot of their own political capital. One of the most effective ways to work together is finding those people and giving them the material they need to have those internal conversations.

JW: There is rightfully so much scrutiny on the big platforms. But the reality is people communicate in other ways too, which are just as important for experts to engage in. What are other information flows that people rely on?

RC: The one that gets overlooked all the time is people just talking to each other in real life. When you talk about trust, those real life interactions still massively outweigh online communication.

If you’re trying to impart information, then the environment you most want to be in is the conversation at places like the nail salon. That’s why influencers try to build rapport, right? It’s recreating those human connections in the online space.

We also need to remember that the big platforms aren’t a monolith. I’ve done surveys with people where they say that Facebook is the primary place where they get information. But whereabouts on Facebook?

It’s almost always very local pages that are set up for something else. For example, I had a case where the local car dealership was posting about whatever was going on in town. Weddings, or car accidents, that kind of thing. And people would tell us, he’s one of the people they get their information from. So it’s on Facebook, but it’s still about that human connection.

JW: Definitely. Do you see that evolving as technology changes?

RC: A lot of conversations are happening in messaging groups now. I’m sure stuff like the car dealership posts are all on WhatsApp groups now.

And that’s a different dynamic. It’s certainly harder to study because it’s less public. But the interesting thing about those spaces is that they are very intimate. It may be the chat group for your street, or your family chat group. But as they get bigger, they become effectively anonymous. So you have this shift between something that’s very personal, and something that’s the complete opposite of that, and it can shift quickly between the two.

JW: If we know that some of the highest trust spaces are these small chat groups, what can organizations do to engage with them? Because they’re essentially private.

RC: This is really hard, especially in the metrics-based funding environments that we’re in. If your job as a communications person at an NGO is to get out some messaging, you can count impressions on a post. But if you’re really trying to inform people in those private spaces, it’s out of your control because you’re not the one sharing directly. That becomes really difficult to measure, and I wish we could tolerate that more than we do.

Obviously, there are things you can do to measure impact. You can do research, and talk to people. But then it takes more work and becomes more expensive just for measurement.

JW: And when it comes to mitigating crises, it can be a double negative to have to prove that your work prevented something bad from happening. But when chaos does happen, it’s a major issue.

The migrant crisis in Ceuta is a recent example, where a lot of people were making risky, life-changing decisions based on information being shared in chat groups. How can organizations prepare for helping with those information flows?

RC: Migration is a really interesting example because there’s been really good work in that space, but it’s often quite controversial.

I was in Greece in 2016 during the European migration crisis around the Syria conflict. We had an online information service that was updated every day. It had news and information about visa processes, when borders closed, things like that. It was the sort of information that’s changing all the time, but that you would need to make good decisions and not put yourself at risk. But there’s often a lot of criticism for that kind of thing.

The important thing is: you can’t just provide a sanitized version of the information because then people won’t trust it. If a border closes, you should tell people so they won’t try to cross it. But if the border re-opens, you have to tell people. Because if they see you’re withholding, then they’ll stop coming to you for information. So you need to be transparent.

JW: I can see that on one hand, you want to help people making serious life decisions. And on the other, even sharing factual information can be seen as a political or moral position, depending on what the facts are that you’re trying to put out there.

RC: This is the problem with being an actor in a contested space. You’re not telling people any secrets. You’re just making it easier for them to find information that already exists. But in a controversial topic like migration, it can feel like you’re taking a stance just by getting involved.

JW: That makes me wonder: Is there a space for humanitarians and civil society organizations to share more publicly about their work, so that people understand what they’re actually doing?

RC: Yes, but it’s hard and complicated. When you don’t talk about the work and why it’s important, you cede ground to the counter-narrative, which is largely incorrect.

That said, there are reasons why some organizations might need to take a more cautious approach. Ultimately, organizations have a responsibility to the people that they serve. And that leads to quite a conservative approach when it comes to communicating with the general public.

JW: Is there anything that we, as the general public, can do to help support experts who are taking the risk of talking about their work online in these difficult situations?

RC: Hm… like and subscribe?! In seriousness, it’s about giving your support through engagement and expressing support more publicly. In a lot of cases, one side of the conversation is very noisy and the other side is very quiet. It’s easy to assume that one side’s bigger than the other, and that’s not always the case.

People talk about virtue signaling as if it’s some awful thing, but there are worse things to be signaled than virtue.

◾

Thank you, Rafiq Copeland, for sharing your expertise! You can find Rafiq on LinkedIn. ◾

Note: This episode discusses the Lindsay Clancy trial, including issues of postpartum psychosis, murder, and suicide.

For several weeks, Lindsay Clancy was on trial in Massachusetts for the deaths of her three young children. Her trial was livestreamed, and the online discourse about it became a news story in itself. Mothers went online to share their postpartum experiences. Forensic scientists and armchair sleuths debated evidence. And conspiracy theorists were present too, of course.

In this episode, Jena and Michelle unpack how stories take shape in today’s information ecosystem. What’s considered newsworthy? How do people decide whom to trust? And how do we protect ourselves from getting overwhelmed by so much content? They also explore the line between privacy and secrecy -- where transparency can build trust, while access can turn private tragedy into spectator sport.

◾

Find us online!

• Michelle Ciulla Lipkin

• Jena Wuu

Read our writing about Lindsay Clancy, trust in expertise, and scrolling with intention:

• Beyond the noise around Lindsay Clancy, Feed for Thought by Jena Wuu, 2026.

• Expertise isn’t missing. Institutional infrastructure is, Feed for Thought by Jena Wuu, 2026.

• The power of the lurker, Feed for Thought by Jena Wuu, 2026.

Check out our recs:

• FULL TESTIMONY | B&W Hospital’s ICU Nurse Meghan Collins testifies at Lindsay Clancy murder trial, East Idaho News (YouTube), 2026.

• What if doctors missed my postpartum psychosis, too?, The Cut, 2026.

• The insanity defense and Latarsha Sanders, Torment and Trial series by Yvonne Abraham, Boston Globe, 2026.

• Torment and Trial: a Boston Globe columnist discusses her series on race, insanity and criminal prosecutions, Mind Site News, 2025.

• Adults on Hulu

Learn more about Gloria Steinem:

• Famous Last Words: Gloria Steinem on Netflix

• Rebecca Traister: Gloria Steinem loved women, The Cut, 2026.

Learn more about Dolly Parton and AI in legacy management:

• Dolly Parton, superstar whose songs spoke to millions, dies at 80, The New York Times, 2026.

• Dolly Parton said she was exploring “avatar performances” before her death at 80, People, 2026.

• Dolly Parton’s team shares updates on active projects in light of her passing, DollyParton.com, 2026.

• Robin Williams’ kids revive Instagram account to combat AI slop: “As technology evolves, we want this to be a safe, trusted place,” Variety, 2026.

Learn more about NYC’s moratorium on AI in public schools:

• Mayor Mamdani and Chancellor Samuels put students first with nation’s broadest Generative AI moratorium in schools, NYC.gov, 2026.

• NYC Mayor Zohran Mamdani explains exactly why he’s banned AI in elementary and middle schools, Mint (YouTube), 2026.

Learn more about the Lindsay Clancy trial:

• Bronx woman in psychosis found not responsible for killing her 2 sons, The New York Times, 2026.

• A husband in the aftermath of his wife’s unthinkable act, The New Yorker, 2024.

• I understand why a jury could not convict Lindsay Clancy, The New York Times Opinion, 2026.

• Judge declares mistrial in Lindsay Clancy case after jury deadlock, CNN, 2026.

• Lindsay Clancy murder trial sparks debate on social media, The Independent, 2026.

• Patrick Clancy’s lawyer threatens conspiracy theorists with legal action: “There will be consequences,” CBS News, 2026.

• The psychology of misinformation: why it’s so hard to correct, First Draft, 2020.

• What to know about the Lindsay Clancy murder trial, AP News, 2026.

• Why was a TikToker called to court for Lindsay Clancy, CNN, 2026.

• Why some people are willing to believe conspiracy theories, American Psychological Association, 2023.

• A woman whose case resembles Lindsay Clancy’s just won a retrial, The New York Times, 2026.

• The women obsessed with Lindsay Clancy, The Atlantic, 2026.

Audio clip sources:

• Blaire Wilson, P.Stat (TikTok), 2026.

• LizLaughLoveNYC (TikTok), 2026.

• nbcnews (TikTok), 2026.

• M.P.G.A. (TikTok), 2026.

• CNN (TikTok), 2026.

• Kiki Rae Real (TikTok), 2026.

• Amy Santoro, Ph.D. (TikTok), 2026.

• matty addy (TikTok), 2026.

◾

About Did You See? with Jena and Michelle

Did you see that? Whether it’s in the news or pop culture, in print or online, we are living in a media overload. It’s a lot to process!

Did You See? is for anyone looking for space to pause and work through the media moments shaping how we see and understand the world. ◾

Welcome to Part 2 of the series, Lurker’s Guide to the Internet.

My goal with these posts is to help you evaluate the platforms you use and decide how to use them. There is no right or wrong platform to be on, and most aren’t inherently good or bad. What’s important is that your digital habits align with your goals and values.

Throughout the series, we’ll look at platforms through five lenses:

• How is information communicated? (Format)

• How do people find each other? (Connection)

• How does content get surfaced? (Discovery)

• Who sets the rules? (Governance)

• Who pays for the platform? (Monetization)

Also check out this field guide to the platforms we’ll be referencing throughout the series. Think of it as a map of the terrain. It introduces the major platforms, explains why I included them, and highlights a few caveats to keep in mind as we go.

Let’s go! This time: Connection.

◾

Social media started with a promise to help people build stronger connections with each other. Twenty years later, whether that worked is up for debate.

Regardless of whether you feel more connected or more lonely online, the fact remains: Platforms bring people together. They do it in different ways, and foster different kinds of interactions.

Knowing how platforms are designed to connect you with others is critical to deciding where you want to spend time. And I believe that you can have a more fulfilling experience online when you are in spaces that meet your goals, preferences, and values.

◾

How platforms connect you with people

Generally speaking, your relationship with people online will fall in one of two buckets:

1. People you already know in real life and connect with online. This can include family members, close friends, colleagues, long lost classmates, or more.

2. People you don’t know, but share interests with. These are people who are looking at similar things, follow the same creators as you, or are making content that you are interested in.

Similarly, there are different types of interactions that you can have with people online:

1. Group conversations. These are participatory spaces where people contribute to a conversation. Groups can be as small as two people or as big as thousands or more.

2. One-way broadcast. This is where someone makes a post for the purpose of distributing it to a number of people. People may comment on the post, but the conversation is mostly centered around that person.

As we go from people you know to strangers you share interests with:

• Chat groups — like on WhatsApp and Messages — are some of the highest trust spaces because of their privacy and exclusiveness. They are usually people you know in real life. Slack is more of a professional tool. As creators increasingly monetize their audiences, we’ll see a rise in chat communities being offered as paid, exclusive content. This is already happening on Slack and WhatsApp, and less on Messages which is only available to Apple users.

• Snapchat is best known for its private messaging features, but it also has a public feed. It skews younger, and is heavily used by 13-24 year olds.

• Telegram is a chat-first platform, which supports small groups to supergroups of up to 200,000 people. It also offers dedicated one-way broadcasting.

• LinkedIn is a professional networking platform. You create a profile and connect with colleagues and professional acquaintances.

• Facebook is a personal networking platform that has traditionally centered on connecting with people you know. However, Facebook Groups are heavily used for bringing people together with shared interests.

• Instagram started as a personal sharing platform, similar to Facebook. But it has evolved towards interest-based connections, such as finding creators you may not know in real life but are making content you like.

• X and Threads are more about topics of interest than personal sharing. Because they are based on short texts, they typically contribute to broader conversations or can generate back-and-forths among users. Substack is similar, but focused on long-form writing, which readers can comment on.

• TikTok, YouTube, and Spotify are closer to a broadcast model, and people’s interactions tend to live in comments about a specific post, video, or podcast. YouTube, with its livestreaming feature, and X remain popular for people commenting during live events, such as sporting events or debates.

• Mastodon facilitates posts, replies, and follows around shared interests, with a reply-and-boost culture akin to early Twitter days that fosters user interactions.

• Discord and Reddit are both designed for public conversations around specific topics. Discord’s roots are in gaming and is more chat-based, whereas Reddit is organized like online forums.

• Personal websites are typically one-way communications. If an interaction is desired with website visitors, it’s usually done via email or other platforms.

Note: In addition to public comments, direct messaging is also common on most platforms.

◾

As with anything that brings people together, platforms can host positive and negative interactions. Hopefully, this guide can help you spend more time with the good aspects — people you want to interact with, on topics you find fulfilling.

And remember: you always have the right to ignore someone, or to stop interacting with them. No explanation or fake politeness required. You always have the right to take your profile private, to block certain people, and to report bad behavior.

And you always have the right to leave a platform.

◾

Up next in the Lurker’s Guide: Discovery. How different platforms connect you with the content they think you’ll like. ◾

🎧 Listen | 4:10 mins

Friends,

Over the last few weeks, I’ve fallen deep into the case of Lindsay Clancy, a former labor and delivery nurse who is currently on trial in Massachusetts for the deaths of her three young children. Central to the case is Lindsay’s postpartum mental health and the care she received in the months before her children died.

I first came across this tragic story in my TikTok feed. Of course, the more content I watched about it, the more TikTok gave me. Eventually, I started watching the trial livestreams on YouTube because I wanted to inform myself with primary information rather than relying on other people’s explanations and edits. I wanted to “do my own research,” as they say.

I’ve written before about how digital platforms make the public more participatory in other people’s tragedies. We also discussed on a recent episode of Did You See? the very complicated experience of having your personal story told by others. The Clancys aren’t the first family to have their real-life tragedy broadcast for others’ consumption, nor is this the first criminal trial to be livestreamed. But it does feel like another step towards the blending of our physical and digital worlds.

In fact, the digital discourse about the trial has become a story of its own. After a former social worker posted a TikTok responding to testimony she had watched online, Lindsay’s defense team tracked her down and sought to add her as a witness. And hundreds of people who are following the case gathered outside the courthouse to advocate for better care for mothers.

Of course, there are plenty of sensationalist takes and conspiracy theories in the mix. They’re distracting, sometimes grotesque, and often given disproportionate visibility by online commentators and media outlets alike. So let’s move on.

With a case this complex, you can go down any number of rabbit holes of your choice. Across TikTok, Instagram, Facebook, Reddit, and YouTube, professionals are contributing their expertise to help people interpret what they’re seeing. Attorneys are analyzing the legal strategies from both the defense and the prosecution. Psychiatrists and other mental health providers are adding context about clinical practice. Forensic scientists are explaining the work of investigating crime scenes and examining evidence. And mothers are sharing their own lived experiences of the postpartum period. The trial may be what’s sparked the conversation, but the insights being shared go much deeper and broader than this specific story.

@themindfulmama.therapyThis coverage is giving moms permission to say the hard stuff out loud. That's a good thing. It's also a lot. If you've hit your limit, put the phone down. Both can be true. Bring what comes up to your therapist. 🤍 Taking care of you is taking care of them. #maternalmentalhealth #lindsayclancy #motherhood #ppd #motherhoodunfiltered

Tiktok failed to load.

Enable 3rd party cookies or use another browser

In that way, although the content I keep consuming about the case has made me feel incredibly sad over the last few weeks, it’s also been a fascinating study of the simultaneous amazingness and messiness of the modern information ecosystem.

This is the world we live in now: the boundaries among news, entertainment, and education are increasingly blurry; there is no shared, linear path for learning. We each encounter events through our own mix of sources, platforms, and perspectives.

But here’s the thing: having access to information isn’t the same thing as being able to understand it. As we’ve seen over the course of this trial, public understanding and opinion will increasingly depend on which voices show up to help people make sense of what they’re seeing.

Whatever role you want to play in that, just remember: when it starts to feel like too much, you have the right to take a break. I certainly will be.

◾

Below are other things I’ve been reading and thinking about this month.

And if you have a content piece to share or a favorite expert creator, send them my way by commenting or hitting reply. I’d love to include them in the next issue.

See you out there,

Did You See? with Jena and Michelle

🎙️ Did you see Toy Story 5?

What do our devices do to our imaginations? That’s what Toy Story 5 explores, the latest installment of a franchise that transformed animation and whose stories still feel relevant 30 years later. Plus: the World Cup goes full American, and offers new conversations on masculinity in sports.

🎙️ Did you see “The Bombing of Pan Am 103” on Netflix?

This is the episode I mentioned above, where Michelle and I discuss storytellers’ responsibilities when turning real tragedy into entertainment. Plus: Nara Smith pushes back on the “trad wife” label, and David Ellison asks the public to trust him with the news.

Available on Substack, Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you listen to podcasts.

News & Commentary

📝 When volume looks like verification

McGee Applied Research Center for Narrative Studies, Vanderbilt University | ~ 4 mins read

Crises are always chaotic information environments. Throw in explosive diarrhea, and you’ve really got a banger. Vanderbilt’s Kristy Roschke breaks down coverage about the recent cyclospora outbreak in the US, and shows how easily repetition can look like corroboration online. It’s a growing problem in an information ecosystem built on aggregation, where content amplifies and feeds on itself.

📝 Harvard is selling a $699 course taught by AI clones of its faculty

The New York Times | ~ 6 mins read

Harvard Business School is experimenting with AI clones of its professors to scale students’ access to their expertise and feedback. Students’ reactions have been mostly positive; most already use AI in their studies, and trust it more when it’s attached to a specific professor. It’s another reminder that human expertise and judgment are what’s most valued — even in an AI bot.

📝 That storytime TikTok is probably an ad

Link in Bio | ~ 6 mins read

I’ve long thought that institutions have a lot to learn from brands who have always had to study and invest in trust-building. But I can’t decide whether new strategies for disguising ads as organic content are genius or shady. They certainly highlight a need for advertising policies to catch up with how content works today. In the meantime, users will have to decide for themselves where they draw the line between content they trust and ads trying to sell them something.

📝 “You can’t just be showing Matcha-Pilates-Alo”

Vulture | ~ 9 mins read

It’s the influencer recession: blandness is out; unique perspective is in. Content that lacks personality feels like slop, people don’t want it, and lifestyle creators are feeling the pain. In response, they’re trying new strategies, including moving to long-form platforms like Substack. For experts hesitant about participating online, this is an opportunity: the Internet is looking for people with actual knowledge and a point of view.

🎙️ Free yourself from information overload

Life Kit | ~ 24 mins listen

Eye twitches, trouble settling down, interrupting yourself — these can all be signs of information overload. As we enter an AI-driven media landscape, our relationship with information will shift from searching for it to parsing through it, which is an even more demanding task for our human brains. This is a long game, so let’s be intentional with our time online and remember to take breaks.

Subscribe now

Expert of the month

📚 Dr. Katie Carhart

Dr. Carhart is one of the mental health providers I’ve encountered on TikTok during Lindsay Clancy’s trial. Her content offers general mental health education for adults. More recently, she’s been answering questions about postpartum mental health and access to care. Her account is a good example of what thoughtful expert participation can look like online: she ignores the thrash, chooses which questions to engage with, and responds to those showing genuine curiosity.

@drkatiecarhartAppreciate all the dialogue on this case and happy that it’s starting a discussion on mental health and the criminal justice system. Lots of layers to this and multiple truths can be occurring at the same time- the system failed Lindsay and Lindsay had more access than many. Interested in learning more? Follow me here for more on nervous system regulation, neurodivergence, trauma, burnout, anxiety and alignment. Click the link in bio to join The Capacity Project (for free!) to get tools and resources on how to understand capacity and reduce shame delivered right to your mailbox. This page is for mental health education and entertainment only — not therapy or individualized clinical advice. I can’t respond to personal situations or provide support. If you need help, please contact a licensed provider or local crisis resources (such as 988 in the US). Interesting working with me directly? Check out my website at www.alignandempowertherapy.com #lindsayclancycase #mentalhealth #lindsayclancytrial #mentalhealthawareness #forensicpsychology

Tiktok failed to load.

Enable 3rd party cookies or use another browser

Happy place

🎧 Listen | 7:54 mins

Last month, I sat down to prepare a proposal for a presentation I’d like to make at next year’s SXSW conference. It required both a written outline and a short video of me speaking. The written part went pretty quickly – my proposal covered topics I’ve been working on for years, and it was pretty straightforward to adapt it to the conference’s format.

But filming a two-minute video of myself? That took me four fraught days.

You’d have never known that I’d built a career as a communicator in high-pressure situations. I’ve faced countless incredulous audiences while representing Uber and Meta at their deepest points of unpopularity. Negotiated with government regulators around the world. Given keynote speeches at national conferences. Needless to say, I’m very comfortable in a skeptical room.

But hand me a tiny microphone in my home office and point my phone at me, and I freeze up.

Two years since I made my first TikTok, I’ve finally gotten comfortable seeing myself pop up on my own feed. But I still struggle with hearing my voice.

Specifically, The Voice. The one that comes out when I want to sound serious and credible. It’s louder, more monotone, and more forceful than my natural way of speaking.

At this point, it comes out automatically whenever I go into presenter mode. It’s just what happens when I turn “on.”

But in the world we live in today, where “authenticity” is the key to building trust, The Voice has become my tell.

So I’m trying to unlearn it.

◾

Of course, The Voice didn’t come from nowhere. For a long time, it was a necessity.

In my mid-twenties, I started my first “real” job, working for an NGO housed within the UN offices in Vienna. It was a diplomatic environment, which I truly enjoyed as a young person, with its formalities and paperwork. Later, I became Employee ~100 at Uber, and entered the “fake it till you make it” world of glitzy Silicon Valley. The two work environments could not have been more different, and yet, the rules of building credibility were surprisingly similar.

Being intelligent was basic – everyone was smart. The key to being taken seriously was how you presented yourself.

I’ve always looked younger than I am, and having started my career in Europe (where university can last longer), I actually was younger than my peers. So I tried to use makeup to age myself – until a colleague took me aside at an event and asked with genuine concern if I was getting an eye infection (the discoloration he noticed was my eyeshadow). After that, I switched to false eyelashes, which were more expensive and harder to maintain. They were also, according to my eye doctor, more likely to give me an actual eye infection. But I kept them anyway.

This was the Lean In era, and there was plenty of advice being handed out to ambitious young women on how to convey credibility at work — actual abilities aside. Wear color. Don’t use upspeak. Lower your pitch. Don’t say “just.” Stand akimbo. Take up space.

Of course, it was a kind of performance. But over time, it stopped feeling like one. I didn’t consciously take on a new persona on stage or in meetings; it just happened. And the thing is: it served a purpose as much for my audience as it did for me.

The Voice assured me of my own credibility. The Voice deserved to be heard.

◾

It never occurred to me that one day, The Voice might become a red flag.

But increasingly, that’s the world we live in now, with all of its AI and decline in institutional trust. People trust people, as they say. “Authenticity” is king. But what does that mean? And if I think too hard about being “authentic,” does that defeat the purpose?

By the time I worked up the gumption to start posting online, I was excited to finally speak for myself. I had spent so many years banging my head within imperfect systems trying to help make the world a little better. It felt liberating to finally talk about things I’ve been thinking about for so long, and to say them my way.

But at the same time, without the constraints of representing an organization, it felt overwhelming. I didn’t really know what my voice was without The Voice. The world where I learned to communicate rewarded polish, certainty, and control. To the general public today, those same qualities read differently. Polish sounds scripted. Absolutism feels scammy. And good luck with trying to control any narrative online.

But as I’ve dived deeper into the world of content creation, I realized something. “Authenticity” is a performance too, just a different kind.

◾

People think they know everything about my life, but what they don’t realize is I’m only showing them what I want them to see. They don’t really know me.

These were words from a creator I met, who makes content about her marriage, kids, and daily life for almost 2 million followers on Instagram. She was responding to a question about oversharing online. Indeed her content looks super personal; she speaks to the camera as if she’s sharing a secret with you or asking for your advice. It’s charming.

Her words stuck with me because they made me realize that “authenticity” doesn’t mean you’re not deliberate. It’s simply another version of The Voice.

Where “authenticity” gets a bad rap is that people understand it to mean showing your whole self online. That’s why “just be yourself” is bad advice to anyone just starting out. Because look at any successful creator’s account, and you’ll start to realize how much strategy they put into it. Content pillars. Catchphrases. Repeated formats. From that perspective, it’s not that different from the way I learned to communicate at work. It’s just a different way of presenting yourself. Yes, you’re seeing someone’s pimples, but it’s because they want you to see them.

◾

Funnily, my online world has become the one place in my life where I feel the most in control. I’m the one setting the boundaries.

The fake eyelashes are gone. Upspeak is just how I talk. But I’m still careful about my words. I still want to be inclusive. I still want to be accurate.

But now, I decide what gets my attention and my energy. I choose what feedback is helpful, and what’s not worth my energy. I can speak with more nuance and less absolutism than I did when following corporate talking points. I can evolve and change my mind without needing anyone’s sign-off to do so.

◾

To be honest, I don’t think I’ll ever lose The Voice. There are still spaces and stages where she fits. And honestly, she’s as much part of me as the one holding the tiny mic on camera.

They’re both types of performance. They’re also both me.

Maybe what I’m actually unlearning is the idea that there’s only one way to present credibility. ◾

🗳️ If you would support my SXSW proposals, I’d be so grateful.

Voting is now live until Sunday, 23 August 2026. To vote, create a free SXSW ID, and click on the Heart on each proposal:

1. The Post-Gatekeeper Institution: A Playbook for Public Trust

   A presentation on how to design institutional workplaces that support staff experts to participate effectively and safely online, while also protecting the organization. This one has the video that stressed me out :-)

2. Who’s Actually Anxious? A Dialogue with Gen Z

   A live recording of the Did You See? podcast, which will feature two youth advocates for an honest discussion about social media and youth well-being.

3. Media Literacy: A New Standard for Every Subject

   An interactive workshop by National Association for Media Literacy Education (NAMLE) for educators about integrating media literacy into K-12 classrooms. Note: I’m a proud NAMLE Board member.

If accepted, this would be my first time at SXSW representing myself (not a company). Thank you so much for your support!

The first time I spoke with Amanda Yarnell, it took all the willpower in my bones not to interrupt her with excitement every five seconds. Yes! Good point! Tell me more!

Amanda is the Senior Director of the Center for Health Communication and Lecturer at Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. In 2023, she started the Center’s Creator Program, which equips social media creators to counter misinformation and spread evidence-based science to their communities.

When I started Meta’s global information ecosystem program, public health was the driving issue behind our efforts to help institutions share expert information online. Hearing Amanda’s perspective from the institutional side was eye-opening and affirming: it’s about building bridges, whichever side you’re on.

We sat down to talk about digital comms, public health, and science as a public service. Answers are edited for length and clarity.

◾

Jena Wuu: Hi Amanda! Let’s start broad. Why is communication so important in public health?

Amanda Yarnell: There is no public health without communication. It’s as essential as epidemiology or biostatistics. You can have terrific evidence-based policies, but if you’re not also investing in bringing people along with those innovations, you’re not going to see the success you want and the public health outcomes we deserve. The last few years have made that more clear than ever.

JW: What do digital comms skills look like for public health?

AY: Traditionally, comms training for scientists focused on how they communicate with each other. Like how you give a talk or how you write a scientific paper.

Increasingly, we live in a world where information is traveling more quickly than ever. It’s more cacophonous, and people expect to be able to do their own research. But digital comms are often treated as something that’s easy to do, or you just do the same things you always did. And that’s just not true.

Digital platforms are much more participatory than any previous form of communication. They blend information and entertainment in a way that somebody coming out of a traditional scientific or public health training is not necessarily going to get. But engaging in those spaces is a skill that any scientist or public health leader needs to have if they want to make the impact on the world that they hope to.

In some ways, digital comms are perfectly matched to scientists. There’s a huge amount of strategy, data, and analytics. It’s way more measurable.

It’s a huge opportunity, and so important. Especially in public health, where it’s in the name. “Public” is part of our discipline.

JW: How is the relationship evolving between public health experts and institutional comms teams, which have traditionally led public engagement?

AY: In the current world, speaking as an institution is only going to get you so far – that’s a broader issue than public health. As we see a decay of trust in institutions, trust is increasingly being transferred over to individuals. That’s why you see brands investing in user-generated content, for example, because they know that consumers are making decisions based on recommendations from individuals.

Public health has naturally – and appropriately – been a little slower to adopt some of that. But comms teams are looking to involve their experts, and to help scientists and experts build their own voice and platform. The problem is how to do that in a sustainable way, which is a huge challenge. But increasingly, they’re collaborative, which is a great thing.

There’s no reason that you have to abandon your own institutional platform. It’s just recognizing that your institutional platform is only going to be part of your communications ecosystem.

JW: Many experts I speak with really don't like tech companies and wish people wouldn’t use digital platforms to find information. What is your advice to a public health expert (or any expert) who is wrestling with their personal feelings about tech and the reality of digital comms becoming necessary for their work?

AY: I mean, it’s not an ideal situation. We don’t live in the environment that we would design, but it is the environment in which we live. So in my view, you can either sit out and critique that from the sidelines, or you can wade in and make strategic investments that reflect your values.

It’s also about helping the people who are using the platforms. That’s really who we’re all doing the work for. It’s not for the platforms. It’s for the people you serve.

Of course, it’s smart to think about which platforms you want to be on. That’s a choice that you have to think through. It should be where your audience is, but also whether the platform reflects your values. Or if you can carve out a place on the platform that reflects your values.

JW: What advice would you give to credentialed people who are clearly experts in their fields, but don’t feel confident presenting themselves that way?

AY: The longer you work in a scientific field, the more you realize how much knowledge is shared. It’s actually an evidence-based conclusion that you know a lot about the specific area that you’re working in, but you also know a lot about what you don’t know. That’s part of the scientific process. So I think what you’re describing is the reaction to that reality. I welcome it when folks recognize what they know and what they don’t know.

As scientists, the most important value that we have is that science is conducted as a public benefit, and public dollars are invested in what we do. At its best, that requires that the public shares in it, which is why that cycle continues.

Online narratives can allow for or hinder different public health investments, and it’s not a given that the public will invest in scientific research. I think it’s incredibly important to society that we continue to do so. Therefore, I am interested in equipping scientists to talk about why what they’re doing is worthy of continued study.

JW: Well said. So why is there such a gap in digital comms education for public health students? For example, in Germany (where I live), only 3.5% of public health programs offer any modules for digital public health.

AY: In public health, there’s a long history of engagement at the in-person community level. Now, we live in a world where the community that is most important to somebody may not be physical at all. It may be digital.

Public health has been pretty underfunded in general, and public health organizations haven’t had that investment in digital comms. But I do think that is changing. In the United States, leaders of top public health schools are recognizing that communications is critical and that they need to do more. We [at the Harvard Chan School] are a good example of that.

JW: Tell me about the Creator Program you started at Chan. You started with mental health, right?

AY: Correct. The program started in 2023. At the time, mental health was a public health topic that people were not running away from. It was the most searched health topic on TikTok.

Mental health was also a perfect example of where audiences were seeking out more than just traditional health expertise. There are many mental health clinicians and providers doing education on these platforms, which is amazing. But there are also so many people sharing their own mental health journeys. So we wanted to think very carefully about how we were supporting both kinds of folks.

We had a theory that people were looking for both traditional, credentialed expertise, and the lived experience side of expertise. So we rolled out the Creator Program as a randomized, controlled trial on TikTok to test what kinds of supports they might each need. We found that the content-making supports we offered were equally valued and equally impactful.

JW: What are those supports?

AY: We make toolkits, which are short, creator-facing summaries with high-quality evidence on a specific topic. They are aimed at making it easier for a creator to make evidence-based content, and we make that available to any interested creators.

We also offer a select group of creators the opportunity to come to Harvard. It’s a way to think about how they can collaborate better with academic researchers, experts, and clinicians, as well as with each other. As part of that, the creators turn around and also teach our students about engaging people.

The summits are a non-financial incentive for creators to engage with our evidence-based materials. They give us the opportunity to empower creators further to become public health leaders on their platforms.

JW: There’s a quote I love from a creator who was reflecting on her experience in the program. She said, “I’m leaving here realizing that I’m a public health leader.”

AY: Unless you happen to be in public health, who comes in thinking that? But you know, they’re some of the most trusted voices.

Part of the long tradition of community engagement in public health is helping community leaders be sources of public health leadership. We’re just thinking about how we can extend that into digital spaces. If a church pastor or a barber can help their communities understand how they want to protect themselves and each other, then so too can someone who’s leading a digital community.

It’s opening up people’s eyes to the power that they have individually and the collective power that they have. And then letting them go. Our role is to convene and provide resources. But it’s their work to carry forward.

JW: Have the summits challenged any assumptions your faculty colleagues may have had about content creators?

AY: I have a lot of colleagues who don’t spend time on TikTok or Instagram, or any short-form, video-driven platform. They’ve never met a creator. So it’s easy to imagine caricatures, like a celebrity who’s hawking something, or somebody who is trying to sell you an illegal supplement.

But there are all kinds of creators on these platforms. They differ in audience size, motivations, the kinds of communities that they have accrued. There’s everything in between, and we’ve just pulled back the curtain a little bit on that. There are people who are true partners and share your values, and might even be open to collaborating.

JW: Is there anyone that you would like to highlight – either an individual creator or an institution – who is making great public health content online?

AY: There are many, many examples. One institution that is doing this really well, is Yale School of Public Health.1 Their Dean, Meg Ranney, has really invested in this and practices it herself. So as a consequence, the institution is making clever investments in how they’re elevating their faculty.

@yalesphcw: This video discusses suicide. If you or someone you know is considering suicide, help is available. Call, text, or chat 9-8-8 anywhere within the U.S. to reach the National Suicide Prevention Hotline. The majority of gun deaths in the United States are suicides. These deaths are utterly preventable with a public health approach, says Dean Megan Ranney. She lays out steps you can take if you or someone you know is suicidal and has access to a gun. #SuicidePreventionMonth #SuicidePrevention #GunViolencePrevention

Tiktok failed to load.

Enable 3rd party cookies or use another browser

For creators, too, I could name hundreds. Sasha Hamdani2 is a psychiatrist specializing in ADHD. And she also has ADHD herself. So she talks about both her clinical experience and how she has experienced a diagnosis like that herself. She’s not afraid to talk about the messiness that comes along with that, so it’s allowed her to have a lot bigger impact than if it were just a dry, clinical thing. She’s also increasingly thoughtful about her role beyond that, and is speaking to policy issues about how we could better serve communities.

@thepsychdoctormdIf you’re asking me what the hidden cost of missing ADHD in women is…here you go. #adhd #adhdinwomen

Tiktok failed to load.

Enable 3rd party cookies or use another browser

Another example is Liz Marnik,3 who is an epidemiologist by training and doing some of the most interesting vaccine education. Again, she speaks from expertise as an epidemiologist and her own lived experience, growing up in a vaccine-hesitant family and growing up unvaccinated.

@sciencewhizlizMeasles hasn’t gone away….

Tiktok failed to load.

Enable 3rd party cookies or use another browser

JW: Is there anything else that you would like to share about digital communication and public health?

AY: Maybe two of my dreams.

JW: Yes please!

AY: One is that we invest in infrastructure that helps creators do this work. We don’t just expect them to do it themselves, which is insane, honestly.

The infrastructure would look like convening creators and giving them evidence-based resources. Creators are excellent at a lot of things, but they’re always looking for more evidence-based ways of having the kind of impact that they want to have.

The second is helping creators make that work. It has to be financially and personally sustainable. You have to feel like platforms care about you the tiniest bit, that they’re not letting other people deepfake you or something like that. And you have to be able to find ways to support it financially. So you don’t have to resort to a brand deal that doesn’t fit your values, and maybe find ways to work with institutions.

We have the opportunity to pilot and research the value of doing that. But for it to be successful, it would have to make it into the world.

◾

Thank you, Amanda Yarnell, for our conversation! You can follow Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health on Instagram, TikTok, and YouTube. ◾

Note: This episode discusses terrorism, familial loss, and grief.

What responsibility do storytellers have when turning real tragedy into entertainment? In this episode, Jena and Michelle discuss The Bombing of Pan Am 103, the BBC series now streaming on Netflix.

For Michelle, the story is deeply personal. Her father, Frank Ciulla, was one of the 270 people killed when the plane exploded in 1988 over Lockerbie, Scotland. In the decades since, there have been many media projects about the tragedy – including news reports, books, documentaries, plays, podcasts, movies, and TV series. Michelle shares how her family decides which projects to participate in, what influence they have over how their story is portrayed, and why remembering accurately matters as much as remembering at all.

Together, Jena and Michelle unpack what audiences should understand about “based on a true story” narratives: when creative license becomes sensationalism and how that impacts the real people whose lives are considered public domain. They also reflect on the unexpected connection they discovered when they first met, and how their lived experiences change the way they consume content.

◾

Please help us bring Did You See? to SXSW EDU in 2027!

Vote for our live recording on the SXSW EDU Panel Picker in 3 easy steps:

1. Create a free SXSW ID

2. Click on the proposal link: Who’s Actually Anxious? A Dialogue with Gen Z

3. Click the Heart icon at the top right. You can vote once for as many proposals as you’d like

Two other proposals for your consideration:

• The Post-Gatekeeper Institution: A Playbook for Public Trust by Jena Wuu

• Media Literacy: The New Standard for Every Subject by the National Association for Media Literacy Education (NAMLE)

Please vote by August 23rd, 2026. Thank you for your support!

◾

Find us online!

• Michelle Ciulla Lipkin

• Jena Wuu

Read our writing about Pan Am 103

• When your life shows up on Netflix, Michelle Ciulla Lipkin, 2026.

• Remembering 12.21.88, Michelle Ciulla Lipkin, 2025.

• Michelle Ciulla Lipkin’s letter to the NAMLE community, 2024.

Check out our recs

• My Brother’s Bomber, Frontline, 2015.

• Targeted: Pan Am 103. Lockerbie, Libya, and the Attack that Brought Terror Home by Jack Carr and James M. Scott. Expected publication in April 2027.

• Remembering Pan Am 103: 30 Years Later, FBI - Federal Bureau of Investigation (YouTube), 2018.

• Mogwai Official Site

• Sex Education on Netflix

Learn more about Nara Smith’s comments

• Is Nara Smith gaslighting us on Call Her Daddy?, Tia Levings, Writer, 2026.

• Nara Smith: Stop calling me a trad wife, Call Her Daddy (YouTube), 2026.

• The tradwife illusion meets the anti-Trump reality, The New York Times Opinion, 2026.

Read David Ellison’s op-ed

• David Ellison: In Defense of the Paramount-Warner Deal, The New York Times Opinion, 2026.

Learn more about Pan Am 103

• Pan Am 103 / Lockerbie Air Disaster Archives, Special Collections Research Center, Syracuse University.

• Victims of Pan Am Flight 103

Learn more about “The Bombing of Pan Am 103”

• “The Bombing of Pan Am 103” Review: Netflix’s sensitive Lockerbie drama is restrained to a fault, The Hollywood Reporter, 2026.

• Director Michael Keillor breaks down depicting the Lockerbie disaster in “The Bombing of Pan Am 103,” What’s on Netflix, 2026.

• The horrific true story behind “The Bombing of Pan Am 103,” People, 2026.

• Stream it or skip it: “The Bombing of Pan Am 103” on Netflix, a drama about the aftermath and investigation of the terror attack over Lockerbie, Scotland, Decider, 2026.

The episode cover image shows Michelle with her siblings in Lockerbie, Scotland. Photo courtesy of Michelle Ciulla Lipkin.

◾

About Did You See? with Jena and Michelle

Did you see that? Whether it’s in the news or pop culture, in print or online, we are living in a media overload. It’s a lot to process!

Did You See? is for anyone looking for space to pause and work through the media moments shaping how we see and understand the world. ◾

When Facebook launched over twenty years ago, social media was new and simple. That was the platform we used because it felt like the only option.

Today, we communicate through a web of digital platforms. Information flows across messaging apps, social networks, newsletters, podcasts, discussion forums, and private communities. We no longer share one Internet; we’re each navigating our own version of it.

When I speak with experts about how they spend time online, many assume that all platforms work the same way. Most stick with what they know or whose brand they like.

But here’s the truth: each platform works differently, and most aren’t inherently good or bad.

Like choosing a family car or a pair of winter boots, you have a lot of choice in which platforms are right for you. Each is designed to work differently, and has its own tradeoffs. The best choice depends on what your goals are, who you want to connect with, and what kind of experience you want to have.

◾

That’s the idea behind this series, Lurker’s Guide to the Internet. It’s a framework for evaluating your options to help you lurk with intention.

Throughout the series, we’ll look at platforms through five lenses:

• How is information communicated? (Format)

• How do people find each other? (Connection)

• How does content get surfaced? (Discovery)

• Who sets the rules? (Governance)

• Who pays for the platform? (Monetization)

Before we dive in, check out this field guide to the platforms we’ll be referencing throughout the series. Think of it as a map of the terrain. It introduces the major platforms, explains why I included them, and highlights a few caveats to keep in mind as we go.

Okay, let’s start. First up: format.

◾

If you've ever found yourself bouncing between Instagram Reels, Facebook posts, podcasts, and endless open tabs of articles, congratulations. You’re a human online.

But are you spending your time intentionally, based on your goals, preferences, and boundaries?

Different platforms are built for different types of content and ways to interact with people. Understanding what each does well is the first step to figuring out where you want to spend your time.

Written text

Benefits:

• Free and easy to produce, so it’s accessible to any creator.

• The easiest format for search engines to index and for AI systems to retrieve and analyze. That makes text-based content particularly influential in how information is discovered and reused.

Tradeoffs:

• Requires literacy skills, which can vary widely.

• Limited to whatever content is produced in your language. AI translation is reducing this barrier, but it remains a challenge for less common languages and dialects.

Images and graphics

Benefits:

• Can simplify complexity in ways text can’t.

• Can reduce language barriers.

Tradeoffs:

• Requires design skills, which makes it less accessible to creators.

• Risk of over-simplifying complexity.

Video

Benefits:

• One of the dominant formats on today’s Internet.

• Low technical barrier to entry for anyone with a phone or computer to film themselves.

• Easiest format for showing personality and building familiarity with an audience.

Tradeoffs:

• Making good videos takes time, skill, and practice.

• Many people feel cautious about speaking on camera online.

Audio (podcasts)

Benefits:

• Less demanding to consume than visual media and can be incorporated in your everyday routines.

• Can build deeper intimacy with a creator without competing visual distractions.

Tradeoffs:

• Limited to what’s available in your language.

• New podcasts require marketing and can be hard to discover.

Once you’ve worked through format, there’s the question of short-form versus long-form.

Short-form content

For the purposes of this guide, I consider short-form content anything that can typically be consumed in under three minutes.

Benefits:

• Useful for discovering new topics or creators, getting precise information that you need quickly, or simply for moments when your brain is just too tired to consume complex content.

• A common entry point to more in-depth content on the topic or from the creator.

Tradeoffs:

• Sacrifices either breadth or depth. So you often have to go back or find other formats for more information.

Long-form content

Benefits:

• Offers more nuance and depth to a topic.

• Often has a longer shelf life than short-form content, particularly when it answers evergreen questions.

Tradeoffs:

• Requires more time and energy to consume, and may not be consumed to the end

• Reaches a smaller audience of people who want to dive deep into the topic being discussed

◾

How the major platforms compare

Let’s start with text-first platforms. Remember that these maps focus on the primary way each platform is designed and used, and to check out the field guide to see which platforms I’m highlighting and why.

As we go short to long:

• X and Threads are on the shortest end because they’re designed to restrict how many characters are allowed in any individual post. On X, you’re limited to 280 characters on the free version. And on Threads, the limit is 500 characters for regular posts.

• Telegram, WhatsApp, Messages, and Slack are private messaging apps. They’re designed for shorter messages, but can be used for longer discussions. Messaging is a key part of the information ecosystem because communities often migrate from public platforms into private conversations. Creators also use these tools to offer exclusive content and build audience loyalty.

• Reddit, Discord, and Mastodon are interest-based platforms, which are more open than private chat groups. Posts can vary in length, and long discussions may form among users.

• Facebook was built on text posts. Length of posts can vary.

• LinkedIn remains organized around written posts and articles, although video is increasingly prominent. It also offers a newsletter feature for longer writing.

• Substack is designed for newsletters and longer writing, and your personal website is yours to make with as short or long text as you like.

Now let’s look at visual/audio-first platforms:

As we go short to long:

• Snapchat is primarily a messaging app built around photos and short videos that disappear after they're viewed or after a set period of time.

• Instagram is designed around images and short videos, while TikTok centers on short-form video. Because Instagram’s feed is mute by default, it’s important to have strong visuals that can get messages across even if there’s no sound. Whereas on TikTok, sound plays an important role and can even be a trend in itself. Multiple shorts can form a series to go more in-depth on topics.

• Facebook started as a text-first platform, but is increasingly dominated by video. Videos can range from short-form to full press conferences and interviews.

• YouTube is built around long-form video and can even host full-length films. It also distributes podcasts, as well as short videos through its feature YouTube Shorts.

• Spotify is primarily a music streaming platform, but it has become the world's largest podcast distribution platform. Podcasts increasingly incorporate both video and audio-only formats. While there are short podcasts — like a headlines round-up, for example — it’s most commonly used for interviews and other long-form programming.

◾

When I was in school, we talked a lot about being audio or visual learners. It was common practice to acknowledge the different ways that people learn and absorb information.

That’s how I think about digital platforms. Once you understand their differences, choosing where to spend your time becomes less about what’s the “best” platform and much more about finding the right tool for you.

◾

Up next in the Lurker’s Guide: Connection. How different platforms connect you with other people. ◾

It highlights the top platforms in each category with the largest global user bases. I’ve also included smaller platforms that are relevant for experts.

Use this post to quickly understand how the main platforms work and differ. You can refer back to it throughout the series.

Scroll below or search for specific platforms:

• Private community platforms: WhatsApp, Telegram, Discord, Slack, Messages

• Open community platforms: Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, X, Threads, LinkedIn

• Discovery and search platforms: YouTube, TikTok, Spotify, Reddit, Substack

• Other platforms you should know: Personal website, Mastodon

At the end of this post, I’ve listed caveats and considerations for this series.

Private community platforms

Private community platforms allow controlled user access. You chat with people you know or have invited. The content is often encrypted to keep it private, and it doesn't appear in public feeds or search results.

Users tend to trust and engage more in these spaces. As public platforms face challenges, more people are moving to private communities for safer-feeling interactions. Creators also use these platforms to monetize their communities through exclusive content.

Note: This list focuses on platforms where private communities are the main product. Some open platforms also offer private products, e.g. Facebook Groups, Instagram Messenger, and Substack chat.

WhatsApp
Meta | Menlo Park, USA | Public company (NASDAQ: META)

WhatsApp is a messaging app used for one-on-one and group chats via text, voice, and video. It’s the leading private messaging platform outside the United States, used by families, professional networks, and businesses.

Users: 3 billion monthly active users globally. Broadest geographic reach of any messaging app. Dominant in Latin America, Europe, Africa, and Asia.

Business model: Paid WhatsApp Business API, with Meta’s advertising ecosystem supporting the free consumer app.

Ownership: Owned by Meta, which also owns Facebook, Instagram, and Threads.

Distribution logic: Direct and group messaging only. No algorithmic feed or public content.

Privacy: End-to-end encrypted by default.

Notable for experts: A common venue for professional networks, especially outside the US.

Telegram
Telegram FZ-LLC | Dubai, UAE | Private company

Telegram is a messaging app for one-on-one chats, supergroups of up to 200,000 members, and large channels for one-way communication. It blends private messaging and broadcasting.

Users: 1 billion monthly active users globally. Strong presence in Eastern Europe, the Middle East, and Southeast Asia. Skews toward users seeking alternatives to mainstream platforms.

Business model: Premium subscriptions and ads in public channels.

Ownership: Founded by Pavel Durov, who also founded VKontakte (Russia’s largest social network).

Distribution logic: Hybrid. Private chats and groups function like WhatsApp. Public channels function more like a broadcast feed — anyone can subscribe and content is publicly searchable.

Privacy: End-to-end encryption is available but not on by default for group chats.

Notable for experts: Significant for news, underground culture, and political organizing. It faces scrutiny for misinformation and extremist content.

Discord
Discord Inc. | San Francisco, USA | Private company

Discord is a platform built around servers — communities organized into topic-based channels for text, voice, and video. Initially for gamers, it’s now popular among professional communities, researchers, and creators.

Users: 200–260 million monthly active users globally. Skews younger but expanding in professional use.

Business model: Premium subscriptions (Nitro) and server boosts.

Ownership: Independent private company. Turned down a $12 billion acquisition offer from Microsoft in 2021.

Distribution logic: Community-based. Content stays within servers. There is no cross-platform algorithmic feed. Discovery happens through server directories or direct invitation.

Privacy: Not end-to-end encrypted. Discord moderates content at the platform level. Server owners moderate at the community level.

Notable for experts: Easy to create moderated communities around specific topics.

Slack
Slack Technologies | San Francisco, USA | Subsidiary of Salesforce (NYSE: CRM)

Slack is a workplace messaging platform organized around channels. Often used for internal team communication and increasingly for distributed communities, like professional associations and peer groups.

Users: ~52 million registered users globally. Predominantly professional — businesses, academic institutions, newsrooms, and nonprofits — with a growing segment of community-based users outside traditional workplace contexts.

Business model: Freemium subscriptions. Free tier limits message history; paid tiers unlock full functionality.

Ownership: Acquired by Salesforce in 2021.

Distribution logic: Channel-based within organizations or invite-only workspaces. No public feed or algorithmic distribution.

Privacy: Not end-to-end encrypted. Slack moderates content at the platform level. On paid plans, workspace administrators can export and read all message history, including direct messages.

Notable for experts: Many academic and research organizations use Slack for internal operations and external professional communities.

Messages
Apple Inc. | Cupertino, USA | Public company (NASDAQ: AAPL)

Messages is Apple’s built-in messaging app, available exclusively on Apple devices, used for one-on-one and group conversations via text, voice, and video.

Users: Apple does not publish Messages user numbers, but the app is widely used because it's built into every iPhone. Apple has approximately 1.2–1.4 billion active devices globally. Messages is particularly prevalent in North America.

Business model: No direct monetization. It retains users within the Apple ecosystem.

Ownership: Owned by Apple.

Distribution logic: Direct and group messaging only. Fully private, no public feed or algorithmic distribution.

Privacy: End-to-end encrypted by default.

Notable for experts: Included here not because of scale, but for its prevalence in North America, where it serves as a default communication tool for many people.

◾

Open community platforms

Open community platforms focus on social connections. Users follow people, build networks, and join public conversations. Content is mostly public, accessible to anyone, and can appear in search results.

These platforms are often linked to social media. Currently, they face significant policy and legal scrutiny about their design. Features like content recommendations and infinite scroll may change.

Facebook
Meta | Menlo Park, USA | Public company (NASDAQ: META)

Facebook is a social networking platform where people connect with friends, family, and public figures. Users share updates, photos, and videos, and join interest-based groups. It's also popular for local organizing and small business pages.

Users: 3.07 billion monthly active users globally. Broadest demographic reach of any platform. The 30–49 age group is the most active. Older users are a growing share of its base.

Business model: Advertising.

Ownership: Owned by Meta, which also owns Instagram, WhatsApp, and Threads.

Distribution logic: Reach depends on both audience relationships and engagement signals, with algorithmic recommendations playing an increasingly important role. That means that having a Facebook page is not enough to reach people — even your own followers. Consistent posting and audience interaction are required to maintain visibility.

Privacy: No end-to-end encryption for public content. Private groups are mostly moderated by admins. Messenger has end-to-end encryption.

Notable for experts: Facebook Groups host diverse online communities, from neighborhood networks to professional associations. Groups are often private, and vary in quality and norms based on admin control.

Instagram
Meta | Menlo Park, USA | Public company (NASDAQ: META)

Instagram focuses on photos and short videos. It started with lifestyle content but now supports creators, brands, and educational material.

Users: 3 billion monthly active users globally. Particularly strong among 18–34 year olds.

Business model: Advertising.

Ownership: Owned by Meta, which also owns Facebook, WhatsApp, and Threads.

Distribution logic: Hybrid. Feed posts and Stories are primarily shown to followers but ranked algorithmically. Reels work differently: they're distributed algorithmically to non-followers based on interest and engagement signals, similar to TikTok. This makes Reels a stronger discovery tool than Instagram's original follower-first model.

Privacy: No end-to-end encryption for public content. Meta moderates content under its community standards.

Notable for experts: Because the feed focuses on visual formats and plays videos with the sound off by default, it prioritizes visual clarity. Also, Instagram has the highest concentration of wellness and lifestyle influencers of any platform — an important consideration for health experts and communicators.

Snapchat
Snap Inc. | Santa Monica, USA | Public company (NYSE: SNAP)

Snapchat is a messaging platform with disappearing photos and videos. It introduced the Stories format used by many platforms today.

Users: 900 million monthly active users globally. Skews younger — mostly popular among 13–24 year olds. Less relevant as a professional platform but significant as a window into how younger audiences consume information.

Business model: Advertising and Snapchat+ premium subscription.

Ownership: Independent public company.

Distribution logic: Hybrid. Direct snaps are person-to-person. Stories are visible to followers. Spotlight (its TikTok-equivalent) is algorithmically distributed to non-followers.

Privacy: By default, messages disappear after viewing but they’re not end-to-end encrypted. Snap moderates content under its community guidelines.

Notable for experts: This may not be a platform that many experts use, but it’s important to include due to its size and prevalence among young people. It’s also a way to understand how younger generations expect content to feel: casual, immediate, and unpolished.

X (formerly Twitter)
X Corp. | San Francisco, USA | Private company

X is a real-time public conversation platform built around short text-based posts, replies, and threads. As Twitter, it was a primary venue for breaking news, academic discourse, and public intellectual debate. Since Elon Musk’s acquisition in 2022, its character and reputation have shifted significantly.

Users: Approximately 600 million monthly active users globally. Historically attracted journalists, academics, and politicians.

Business model: Advertising and X Premium subscriptions.

Ownership: Acquired by Elon Musk in 2022 and taken private.

Distribution logic: Hybrid of follower-based and algorithmic feeds. X Premium subscribers receive preferential algorithmic distribution. Reach is now increasingly tied to paid features.

Privacy: No end-to-end encryption for public content. Content moderation has decreased significantly since Musk’s acquisition.

Notable for experts: Historically the most important platform for academic and policy discourse. Since Musk’s acquisition, many experts and journalists have shifted to Bluesky, Threads, and LinkedIn. But X remains significant.

Threads
Meta | Menlo Park, USA | Public company (NASDAQ: META)

Threads is Meta’s text-based social platform, launched in 2023 as a direct competitor to X. It is built on Instagram’s social graph, so you automatically connect with those that you already follow on Instagram.

Users: 400 million monthly active users globally and growing rapidly. User base skews toward existing Instagram users and those who left X after 2022.

Business model: Advertising.

Ownership: Owned by Meta, which also owns Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp.

Distribution logic: Algorithmic feed with a following feed option. Benefits from Meta’s recommendation infrastructure and cross-promotion across Instagram and Facebook.

Privacy: No end-to-end encryption for public content. Meta moderates content under its community standards.

Notable for experts: The fastest-growing platform in this category. Still establishing its identity and community norms. Lower friction to join for anyone already on Instagram.

LinkedIn
LinkedIn Corporation | Sunnyvale, USA | Subsidiary of Microsoft (NASDAQ: MSFT)

LinkedIn is a professional networking platform used for connecting with colleagues, recruiting and job searching, sales prospecting, and industry networking. A growing number of professionals also use it to build public presence through text posts, long-form articles, and LinkedIn Newsletters.

Users: 1.2 billion members globally, with estimated 350 million monthly active users. Predominantly used for professional networking.

Business model: Premium subscriptions, recruiting tools, and advertising.

Ownership: Acquired by Microsoft in 2016.

Distribution logic: Algorithmic feed weighted toward engagement. Content from outside your network can reach you if it performs well. Organic reach remains relatively strong compared to Facebook and Instagram.

Privacy: No end-to-end encryption for public content. LinkedIn moderates content under its community standards.

AI indexing: LinkedIn content is widely indexed by search engines and increasingly surfaced in AI-powered search and answer engines. Professional profiles and public posts are becoming more visible in AI-generated results.

Notable for experts: The largest industries represented on LinkedIn are professional services, technology, finance, and manufacturing. Institutional fields like medicine, academia, and government are underrepresented relative to their professional weight in society.

◾

Discovery and search platforms

These platforms are built around topics and interests rather than your existing social network. You don't need to know anyone to find relevant content. The platform shows you content based on your searches, interactions, and what others with similar interests value.

For creators, reaching an audience relies less on follower count than on user signals about the relevance and quality of your content. So they often design their content to be easily indexed for the questions and topics people are searching for. These platforms can help creators reach people who are actively looking for the information they offer — often strangers who would rarely connect through a community-based network.

YouTube
Google LLC | San Bruno, USA | Subsidiary of Alphabet Inc. (NASDAQ: GOOGL)

YouTube is a video platform for watching, sharing, and commenting on everything from short clips to documentaries. It’s the largest video platform and the second largest digital platform by monthly users. It acts as both a search engine and a social network.

Users: 2.5 billion monthly active users globally. Broadest demographic reach of any video platform — it’s used across all age groups, geographies, and interests.

Business model: Advertising, with a premium subscription tier (YouTube Premium) that removes ads and enables background playback.

Ownership: Owned by Google, a subsidiary of Alphabet Inc.

Distribution logic: Hybrid of search and algorithmic recommendations. Viewers can subscribe to channels, but YouTube prioritizes watch history and engagement signals over follower relationships. Because of YouTube’s search features, older videos can still generate views long after they're published, giving content a shelf life that most social platforms don't offer.

Privacy: No end-to-end encryption for public content. YouTube moderates content under its Community Guidelines.

Notable for experts: The combination of searchability and long content shelf life makes YouTube uniquely suited for evergreen expert content like explainers and lectures.

TikTok
ByteDance (global) | Beijing, China | Private company
TikTok Inc. (US) | Los Angeles, USA | Private company

TikTok is a short-form video platform that serves content based on users’ searches, interests, and engagement. It has become a significant venue for education and expert commentary, alongside entertainment.

Users: About 1.6–2 billion monthly active users globally. Skews younger but older demographics are growing. Strong presence in Southeast Asia, North America, and Europe.

Business model: Advertising, in-app purchases, and commerce (TikTok Shop).

Ownership: Owned by ByteDance, a Chinese company. In the US, it operates as a separate entity under TikTok Inc., following regulatory pressure over data privacy and national security concerns.

Distribution logic: Interest- and search-based algorithm, not follower-based. Creators without followers can reach millions if their content is considered helpful and engaging.

Privacy: No end-to-end encryption for public content. TikTok moderates content under its community guidelines. Has faced scrutiny in the US over data privacy and access by its Chinese parent company.

Notable for experts: TikTok offers excellent organic reach to audiences beyond your existing network. Authenticity is rewarded over polished production, a shift from earlier platforms like YouTube and Instagram. Regulatory uncertainty in the US is a concern for experts in sensitive fields.

Spotify
Spotify Technology S.A. | Stockholm, Sweden | Public company (NYSE: SPOT)

Spotify is primarily an audio streaming platform known for music but is now a leading distribution platform for podcasts. It serves as both a hosting and discovery platform for audio content.

Users: Approximately 750 million monthly active users globally. Broad demographic reach across age groups and geographies. Podcast listeners tend to be educated, higher-income audiences.

Business model: Freemium subscriptions. Free tier is ad-supported; Premium removes ads and enables offline listening.

Ownership: Independent public company headquartered in Stockholm.

Distribution logic: Hybrid of search and algorithmic recommendation. Podcasts are surfaced through search, editorial playlists, and Spotify’s recommendation engine. Discovery is harder than on video platforms — podcast growth tends to rely heavily on cross-promotion from other platforms.

Privacy: Standard data collection for personalization. Content moderation applies to podcasts hosted on Spotify under its platform rules.

Notable for experts: Podcasting suits experts well with its long and conversational format. The barrier to entry is lower than video. However, discoverability remains a challenge for new creators.

Reddit
Reddit Inc. | San Francisco, USA | Public company (NYSE: RDDT)

Reddit is a network of topic-based communities called subreddits where people share links, ask questions, and have discussions. Content is ranked by community upvotes rather than follower count or algorithmic recommendation, making it one of the most distinctly community-governed platforms at scale.

Users: Approximately 765 million monthly active users globally. Skews younger and male, though women users have been steadily growing, driven in part by active communities around women's health, relationships, and lifestyle topics.

Business model: Advertising and Reddit Premium subscriptions.

Ownership: Independent public company; went public in 2024.

Distribution logic: Community and vote-based. Content rises or falls based on upvotes within each subreddit. There is no follower feed — discovery happens within communities you join or through Reddit’s front page aggregation. Moderators are volunteer community members, not Reddit staff or vendors.

Privacy: No end-to-end encryption for public content. Reddit moderates at the platform level. Individual subreddits are moderated by volunteer community members with significant autonomy.

AI indexing: Reddit has become an important source of training and retrieval data for AI systems, supported by formal licensing agreements with companies including Google and OpenAI.

Notable for experts: Reddit has become a significant venue for peer knowledge-sharing in communities that feel underserved by mainstream institutions and legacy media — women's health, chronic illness, and mental health are among the most active.

Substack
Substack Inc. | San Francisco, USA | Private company

Substack is a platform for newsletters, podcasts, and long-form writing. Writers publish directly to subscriber inboxes, and often give readers the option to pay for premium content.

Users: 20 million monthly active subscribers globally. While small compared to other platforms, subscribers are highly engaged and have opted in to receive content.

Business model: Free to publish, and writers can monetize directly through reader subscriptions. Substack takes a 10% commission on paid subscriptions.

Ownership: Independent private company, backed by venture capital.

Distribution logic: Primarily direct — content goes to subscriber inboxes. Substack has an algorithm-based feed called Notes, but email remains the main method. Writers own their subscriber lists and can export them.

Privacy: Standard data collection. Content moderation is notably light compared to other platforms. Substack has faced criticism for hosting controversial content with limited intervention.

AI indexing: Public Substack posts are increasingly discoverable through AI-powered search systems. The text-heavy format is well-suited for indexing.

Notable for experts: You own your audience here; your subscriber list is yours. The direct-to-inbox model ensures your content reaches subscribers without competing in an algorithmic feed. It has a small but engaged readership, gaining credibility for serious writing by experts. However, internal discovery is limited; most writers promote their newsletters on other platforms.

◾

Other platforms you should know

The platforms below don't fit neatly into the categories above, but are important for understanding the full range of options in the digital information ecosystem.

Personal website (direct publishing)
Various hosts

A personal website is your online space. You control its content and design. It’s hosted on your domain and built on your chosen platform. You aren't bound by third-party rules or algorithms.

Users: Not applicable. A personal website is your piece of real estate online.

Business model: Costs vary. Domain registration and hosting typically run $50–200 per year. Costs may increase if you hire designers or other technical support.

Ownership: You own everything: your content, domain, data, and audience relationships.

Distribution logic: None. A personal website lacks an algorithm, feed, or audience. Traffic comes from search engines, links, or direct visits. This option offers high control but low built-in reach.

Privacy: Fully under your control. You decide site accessibility and data collection from visitors.

Notable for experts: A personal website offers complete control over content, design, distribution, and data. The tradeoff is that you must build your audience. Many experts use it as a home base to showcase their work across platforms, rather than as a primary content channel.

Mastodon (open source network)
Mastodon gGmbH | Berlin, Germany | Nonprofit

Mastodon is a decentralized, open-source social network made of independent servers, or instances, that communicate with each other. Imagine viewing Instagram content through your TikTok account — that’s how instances interact. It’s part of the fediverse, a network of interconnected platforms.

Users: Under 1 million active users globally — a small fraction compared to other platforms.

Business model: No central business model or advertising. Mastodon gGmbH is funded mainly by user donations. Individual instances support themselves through donations or volunteers.

Ownership: No central owner. Mastodon gGmbH is a nonprofit that maintains open-source software and runs one of the largest instances, mastodon.social. It doesn’t control the thousands of other independent instances worldwide. No one governs the fediverse as a whole.

Distribution logic: Follower-based within and across instances. No central algorithm — content appears chronologically. No advertising, and no engagement-optimized recommendation engine.

Privacy: Varies by instance. Content moderation is managed by individual instance administrators, not a central company.

Notable for experts: I included Mastodon because of what it represents — a working example of a platform governed entirely by its community rather than a corporation. It embodies what a lot of people say they wish for in platforms: no ads, no algorithm, no central authority. However, its small size and technical barrier to entry make it an unlikely starting point for most.

Caveats and considerations

Here are some important points to keep in mind when using the Lurker’s Guide to the Internet series:

• The user figures come from public sources, including company announcements, earnings calls, and third-party aggregators like Backlinko, Statista, and DemandSage. These numbers change often and may use different definitions. Treat them as directional, not exact.

• The map focuses on the largest global platforms by active user base. Region-specific platforms like WeChat, Douyin, or LINE are not included, despite their large user bases.

• I am also excluding sector-specific platforms, such as Academia.edu for academics or Doximity for physicians. Still, I hope this series helps you think about the qualities you want in the platforms you use.

• Some platforms with smaller user bases are included, like LinkedIn, Messages, personal websites, and Mastodon (an open-source network), as they are relevant for experts.

• This series covers only organic (unpaid) distribution. Paid advertising and content boosting are not included.

• Specific reasons for choosing one platform over another are not considered. This includes accessibility features or user demographics like age, language, political views, or location.

• The series is based on publicly available information and my direct experience. For transparency, I worked at Meta from 2018-2024. ◾

Over thirty years after Woody and Buzz Lightyear first came to life on screen, Jessie is the new sheriff in charge, a tablet is the newest plaything, and Toy Story is asking the question of our time: what do our devices do to our imaginations?

In this episode, Jena and Michelle unpack how Toy Story 5 explores tech, play, and friendship with nuance and humor. They also revisit why the franchise has endured for three decades – from its themes of loyalty and change to the way Pixar revolutionized animation and storytelling itself.

◾

Check out our recs:

• Creativity Inc. by Ed Catmull, 2023.

• The Pixar Theory

• Pixar’s 22 rules of storytelling, Jeannie Ruesch, 2026.

• Inside Pixar, Disney+, 2020.

Audio clip sources:

• Toy Story 1995 | 10 Best Quotes, 10 Best Quotes (YouTube), 2024.

• CNN (TikTok), 2026.

• Why everyone hates the new hydration breaks, The Wall Street Journal (YouTube), 2026.

• Sander Jennings (YouTube), 2026.

• Bellingham: “My mum told me to watch my language!”, Beanyman Sports (YouTube), 2026.

• BBC Radio 4 (TikTok), 2026.

• You’re mocking me, aren’t you?, Bosh (YouTube), 2020.

• Toy Story! There’s a snake in my boots. OR There’s a snake in my boot., Divine Child_Creative Rebellion (YouTube), 2026.

• Entertainment Stories (TikTok), 2025.

Learn more about the World Cup

• Everyone’s mad at the World Cup’s new “hydration breaks” – except Mr. Moneybags over here, Wired, 2026.

• A heavily jeered $250m goldmine - are hydration break ads here to stay?, BBC, 2026.

• How long was the 2026 World Cup final halftime break?, USA Today, 2026.

• Revealed: How much David Beckham earned from 2026 World Cup – with Man Utd & England legend enhancing billion-pound net worth, Goal.com, 2026.

• Shakira, Madonna, BTS, Justin Bieber, & more take over FIFA’s first-ever World Cup final halftime show, Billboard, 2026.

• Why ITV aren’t showing adverts during World Cup hydration breaks, Four Four Two, 2026.

• The World Cup half-time show was slick, surreal and entirely unnecessary, The Athletic, 2026.

Learn more about Toy Story 5 and Pixar

• Disney lays off hundreds of staffers, Pixar hit hard, The Wrap, 2026.

• Disney & Pixar merger: The inside story of a $7.4 billion deal, M&A Community, 2025.

• How Toy Story changed Pixar – and animation, The Walt Disney Company, 2026.

• Jobs stake in Disney valued at $3.9 billion, NBC News, 2006.

• Our Story, Pixar.

• Review: Why “Toy Story” is the best franchise ever, The New York Times (YouTube), 2026.

• The timeless allure of Toy Story: A deep dive into its enduring popularity, Story Lamp Reviews, 2024.

• Toy Story (review), RogerEbert.com, 1995.

◾

About Did You See? with Jena and Michelle

Did you see that? Whether it’s in the news or pop culture, in print or online, we are living in a media overload. It’s a lot to process!

Did You See? is for anyone looking for space to pause and work through the media moments shaping how we see and understand the world. ◾

🎙️ Listen to the latest episode of Did You See? as we examine the media moments shaping culture. This week: Taylor Swift and Travis Kelce's wedding, the transatlantic culture wars over air conditioning, and America's 250th birthday.

Friends,

“The more often you hear something, the more likely you are to believe that it’s true.” That’s a line that Professor Candice Odgers repeats — twice, for good measure — in her recent TED talk, What we’re getting wrong about teens and tech.

Odgers is doing something many experts aspire to do: she’s changing public discourse. Correcting misconceptions. Adding nuance to a topic that has become oversimplified in the media and misunderstood by the public.

Watching her, I was reminded of my work at Meta partnering with public health experts, climate scientists, and elections officials. We spent enormous effort making content to debunk misinformation; or when we felt ahead of the game, we called it “pre-bunking.” But even pre-bunking meant reacting to and reinforcing someone else’s framing, rather than consistently advancing our own.

Odgers does something different. Rather than focusing on what she disagrees with, she centers her own message. And her talk doesn’t feel like a lecture, even though it’s rooted in years of research. She combines evidence with personal stories and a clear, memorable narrative. When she jokes about becoming the adult who judges teenagers for everything — from what they wear to why they aren’t partying enough — the audience laughs because they recognize themselves in her.

But changing public understanding takes more than evidence or good storytelling. As Odgers reminds us, it also takes repetition.

Many experts believe they need an original insight before they can contribute publicly. That may be true in some circles, but not in the digital ecosystem. There, change rarely happens because one person has a brilliant idea. Change happens because many people consistently reinforce the same messages until they become familiar.

That’s how public understanding shifts. And it’s something all of us can do — whether it’s by creating our own work online, or by choosing what we amplify through what we follow, comment on, and share.

After all, the more often we hear something, the more likely we are to believe that it’s true. So let's make sure the messages being repeated are ones grounded in evidence and informed by expert judgment.

◾

Below are other things I’ve been reading and thinking about this month.

And if you have a content piece to share or a favorite expert creator, send them my way by commenting or hitting reply. I’d love to include them in the next issue.

See you out there,

Did You See? with Jena and Michelle

🎙️ Did you see that Taylor Swift and Travis Kelce got married?

If you haven’t heard, Taylor Swift and Travis Kelce got married last weekend in NYC. Whether you’re interested in their wedding or not, the spectacle around it reveals a lot about celebrity performance, fandom, and what public figures owe the people who put them there. and I dig into it in our latest episode of Did You See?

Available on Substack or wherever you listen to podcasts.

News & Commentary

📝 Alan Alda’s solution to eroding trust in science: more improv

Wall Street Journal | ~ 5 mins read

Stony Brook University is teaming up with actor Alan Alda to offer improv workshops to help scientists loosen up the way they communicate and build empathy with different kinds of audiences. With participants ranging from chronic pain researchers to atmospheric scientists, there’s clearly demand for out-of-the-box approaches to rebuilding public trust. And there’s a lot to appreciate about the yes, and attitude experts are bringing to the challenge.

📝 The future of science communication is not an article like this

Nature | ~ 3 mins read

Nature is officially on TikTok, and doing a great job with their content. This editorial discusses the need to reach the public where they are and provide credible information to counter falsehoods online. But there's another, deeper significance to the move: it signals that short-form digital media deserves a place alongside more traditional forms of science communication.

📝 8 AI bots write 50% of X’s community notes

Indicator | ~ 7 mins read

When platforms like X and Meta shifted away from centralized content moderation, they argued that community-based models would help to reduce bias. How does that work if AI now writes half of Community Notes on X? AI can help with scale problems, but it can’t fill information gaps or eliminate bias where adequate source material doesn’t exist.

📝 The Filipino virtual assistants behind LinkedIn’s ‘thought leadership’ content mill

Rest of World | ~ 8 mins read

Executives are outsourcing their LinkedIn engagement to virtual assistants who draft posts, write comments, and help maintain the appearance of thought leadership.

This shouldn’t be surprising. On one hand, having a digital presence has become valuable enough to create an entire support industry around it. On the other hand, it raises questions about authenticity, even when AI isn’t involved.

📝 Decline of Ph.D. Admissions Could Imperil a “Generation of New Talent”

The New York Times | ~ 7 mins read

Some of the US' leading research universities are reducing Ph.D. admissions, in response to uncertainty around federal funding, which is increasingly becoming politicized. The immediate concern is on scientific research, but there will also be downward effects on undergraduate education and what the next generation of expertise might look like.

It’s another example of how external narratives have profound impacts on experts’ abilities to do their jobs. Turning that around will require more than a change in political leadership. It will require academic institutions to engage more intentionally with the public and rebuild trust from the inside out.

Subscribe now

Expert of the month

📚 Dr. Shawna | TikTok

The algorithm has recently started serving me Dr. Shawna’s content, and I’m so grateful for it. In her profile, she describes her content as “hot takes with citations,” and I’ve been watching a lot of her recent posts about credibility, credentials, and education access. For anyone who thinks that people don’t want to see complex content online, please note that Dr. Shawna has nearly 180k followers on TikTok. Let that sink in.

@dr.shawnaWhy do we trust the people and creators that we do? In this video, I explore the concept of borrowed authority and how we decide who has earned our trust online. There are so many visual and verbal cues people use to gain our trust and establish credibility, which ultimately is a performance of authority. We can look to work in the social sciences and social media studies to understand how this works, what it looks like, and what we can do. For more on that, let’s go to the research! #LearnOnTikTokContest #didyouknow #psychology #socialscience

Tiktok failed to load.

Enable 3rd party cookies or use another browser

Happy place

I’ve been following Sarah Ahn’s TikTok for a while, where she shares recipes and stories of Korean home cooking with her mother, whom she calls Umma. They recently won a James Beard award for their new cookbook, Umma. If you’re looking for a calming and heartwarming space online, check out their account. It’s about more than Korean cuisine — it’s a true celebration of home life, moms, and daughters.

@ahnestkitchenWe did it, thanks to you all! Our cookbook, UMMA, is officially out for pre-order. 🥹🇰🇷 Pre-order link is in bio. UMMA | Uhm-Mah | /ʌm.ma/ means “mom” in Korean. This cookbook is my tribute to the heart of every Korean kitchen—the umma. It’s packed with 100+ recipes that my Umma has perfected to bring you the very best of Korean cooking, each one authentic and unique to us. But it’s more than just a recipe book. Woven throughout are stories and conversations of love, intention, and the unspoken language passed down through food. Like the storytelling content I share here, it’s filled with thought-provoking, funny, and universally relatable moments that capture a life rich with wisdom, memories, and heart. Whether you’ll enjoy this book for a good read, or for the best recipes Umma developed to her fullest capacity, I hope this book fills your kitchen with warmth and leaves you with moments to reflect on, laugh with, and savor. UMMA is now available for pre-order. Your support in pre-ordering plays the BIGGEST role in the success of this cookbook and opens up opportunities for exciting in-person events, like book tours and cooking classes. We’d love to meet you, share stories, and make Korean food together in real life. Your support means the world to me—it fuels my passion for sharing Korean food and storytelling, and it supports my family. Thank you from the bottom of my heart for being a part of this journey with me. A special thank you to everyone at @testkitchen for believing in us and giving us this opportunity. I can’t express my gratitude enough. We hope this book brings you as much joy and warmth as we poured into every page. - Sarah and Umma Ahn #koreanmom #umma #koreanfood #kimchi #saltbread #koreancafe #giftideas #booktok

Tiktok failed to load.

Enable 3rd party cookies or use another browser

It’s the most-hyped wedding of the year: Taylor Swift and Travis Kelce got married at Madison Square Garden on July 3rd. There’s a lot that we know – a thousand guests, 20-minute vows, a jumbotron announcement. And there’s a lot that we don’t know – what did Taylor’s dress look like, and more importantly, what did Adam Sandler wear?

But what does the spectacle reveal about celebrity performance, fandom, and what public figures owe the people who put them there? In this episode, Jena and Michelle unpack how two of the biggest personal brands in music and sports came together, and why fans are more conflicted about Taylor’s happy ending than you might expect.

◾

Read our writing about Taylor Swift:

• MEdia Notes (Taylor’s Version)

Check out our recs:

• The End of an Era, Disney+, 2025.

• There are plenty of power publicists. But only one works for Taylor Swift., The Wall Street Journal, 2024.

• The people who brought you Travis Kelce, The New York Times, 2024.

Learn more about the photo we discuss:

• Patriot Front members and a solitary woman travel on a DC train: a picture and its story, Reuters, 2026.

Audio clip sources:

• Wedding March by Felix Mendelssohn

• CBS Mornings (TikTok), 2026.

• CBS Mornings (TikTok), 2026.

• CNN (TikTok), 2026.

• Ricki-Lee & Tim (Instagram), 2026.

• Morgan St. Jean (Instagram), 2026.

• Meredith Lynch (Instagram), 2026.

• Page Six (TikTok), 2026.

• Jojo (in KC) (TikTok), 2026.

• ABC7LA (TikTok), 2026.

Learn more about the heatwave in Europe:

• Air conditioning creates political divide after France records hottest day, BBC, 2026.

• Geopolitical Europe needs air-conditioning, Carnegie Europe, 2026.

• The overlooked reason Europe doesn’t have AC, The Atlantic, 2026.

• Why Germans don’t have air conditioning, Deutsche Welle, 2026.

Learn more about America’s 250th anniversary celebrations:

• One birthday, two party planners: Freedom 250 vs. America 250, explained, NBC News, 2026.

• What is Freedom 250? And why are musical artists distancing themselves from its concerts?, The Hill, 2026.

• White nationalists march in Washington amid 250th anniversary celebrations, The New York Times, 2026.

Learn more about Taylor Swift and Travis Kelce:

• All of Taylor Swift’s lyrics about getting married, from “Love Story” to “Honey”, Today, 2026.

• The defiant conventionality of Taylor Swift and Travis Kelce, The Atlantic, 2025.

• How Taylor Swift and Travis Kelce’s hand-picked charities learned about $26M donation: “Boy, have I got news for you”, People, 2026.

• Inside Taylor Swift and Travis Kelce’s wedding: 20-minute vows, Paul McCartney singing, and “bars everywhere”, People, 2026.

• Jason and Travis Kelce sign reported $100 million podcast deal with Amazon’s Wondery, Forbes, 2024.

• Kylie Kelce unseats Joe Rogan as top podcast with debut episode, The Hill, 2024.

• Taylor Swift and the philosophy of Easter eggs, London School of Economics, 2024.

• Taylor Swift and Travis Kelce unite in marriage, The New York Times, 2026.

• Taylor Swift, what are you doing?, The New York Times, 2026.

• What does it cost to take over Madison Square Garden?, The New York Times, 2026.

◾

About Did You See? with Jena and Michelle

Did you see that? Whether it’s in the news or pop culture, in print or online, we are living in a media overload. It’s a lot to process!

Did You See? is for anyone looking for space to pause and work through the media moments shaping how we see and understand the world. ◾

In this episode, Jena and Michelle unpack the growing concentration of power in media. Using recent developments involving Musk, the Murdoch family, and Larry and David Ellison, they explore how media empires are evolving and what happens when a small number of people controls most of what everyone else sees and hears.

They also discuss the turmoil at 60 Minutes, the future of news, and why it’s essential for the public to understand who owns what.

Listen here on Substack, or at Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or Podcast Addict.

◾

Read our writing about power in media:

• On Charlie, Jimmy, and Larry, Feed for Thought, 2025.

Listen to our episode about Australia’s social media ban:

• Apple Podcasts

• Spotify

• Substack

Check out our recs:

• The UK’s violent riots were stoked by Elon Musk and a global far-right network, On the Media, 2026.

• Last Week Tonight with John Oliver: Corporate Consolidation (S4 E24)

• Last Week Tonight with John Oliver: Tech Monopolies (S9 E14)

• Last Week Tonight with John Oliver: Bari Weiss (S12 E26)

Audio clip sources:

• Knicks Win Championship, ESPN footage, 2026

• Keir Starmer endorses Netflix drama Adolescence as a wake-up call on online violence, The Indian Express, 2025.

• Justice Department Approves Merger, CBS News, 2026

• Meet the billionaires who control your media, It’s Been a Minute, 2026.

Want to learn more?

New York Knicks:

• Why the Knicks really won, The New York Times, 2026.

• The Haves and Have-Nots: How the Knicks’ Celebrity Row works, Front Office Sports, 2024.

UK social media ban:

• Fact sheet: New rules to protect children online, UK Department for Science, Innovation, & Technology, 2026.

• Five big questions about the UK’s under-16s social media ban, BBC, 2026.

• It makes no sense: 16- and 17-year-olds on UK social media ban, The Guardian, 2026.

• Panic first, evidence later, Kids Play Tech Lab, McGill University, 2026.

• Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s resignation speech in full, BBC, 2026.

• Use, views and worries on age bans on social media: responses form 29,169 children in 19 European countries, EU Kids Online, University of Oslo, London School of Economics, 2026.

Power in media:

• How a $45 million donation brought Larry Ellison deeper into Trump’s circle, Wall Street Journal, 2026.

• How Elon Musk is boosting far right politics across the globe, NBC News, 2025.

• Justice Department approves Paramount Skydance’s acquisition of Warner Bros. Discovery, NBC News, 2026.

• A Murdoch builds his own media empire. Is this Succession or secession?, The New York Times Magazine, 2026.

• The Murdoch family fight is over. So what does Lachlan control?, The New York Times, 2025.

• Paramount agrees to pay $16M to settle Trump lawsuit, Pew Research Center, 2025.

• Paramount CEO promises editorial independence for 60 Minutes, says Lesley Stahl, The New York Times, 2026.

• Rivalries and rumors: how the new order of the Murdoch dynasty is playing out, BBC, 2025.

• Scott Pelley on the Bari Weiss era and his last days at 60 Minutes, The New York Times, 2026.

• SpaceX IPO makes Elon Musk the world’s first trillionaire, Reuters, 2026.

• Student who called out CBS at News Emmys says Scott Pelley did the “right thing” amid network upheaval, NBC News, 2026.

• What Fox’s Roku acquisition says about Lachlan Murdoch’s vision, The Poynter Report (Poynter Institute), 2026.

◾

About Did You See? with Jena and Michelle

Did you see that? Whether it’s in the news or pop culture, in print or online, we are living in a media overload. It’s a lot to process!

Did You See? is for anyone looking for space to pause and work through the media moments shaping how we see and understand the world.

Michelle Ciulla Lipkin spent 25+ years in media and education — as a media literacy educator, advocate, and CUNY lecturer.

Jena Wuu spent 15+ years in tech and policy — building Uber in Europe and founding Meta’s global information ecosystem program.

Two friends, two different perspectives on the same media landscape, and a shared belief that there’s always something more to the story. ◾

Share

🎧 Listen | 4:56 mins

So… people really don’t like AI.

This spring, university graduates across the United States booed commencement speakers extolling AI’s promise. Only 18% of young Americans feel hopeful about it. Indeed, AI is now less popular than ICE.

One question people keep coming back to is whether AI – a manmade thing – is indeed inevitable, or just forced onto us by corporate greed.

@goodnoticingspod @goodnoticingspod ♬ original sound - Good Noticings

Tiktok failed to load.

Enable 3rd party cookies or use another browser

There is truth to that. It takes a lot of money to build AI, and investors expect a return. More than $300 billion has been invested in OpenAI and Anthropic alone. That may explain why both companies are moving towards massive IPOs this year, despite profitability remaining elusive.

But there’s nothing new about commercial interests shaping social norms.

Bacon became a breakfast staple because of marketing. Diamonds came to symbolize marriage because of a De Beers campaign. Companies like Hallmark transformed holidays into obligatory gift-giving occasions.

So, yes. AI is here to stay because of commercial pressure. And because of geopolitical competition.

But also because it appeals to human nature.

◾

You can see this in the debate around AI and creative work. It’s already a big business – Ben Affleck recently sold his AI production startup to Netflix for $600 million. Meanwhile, writers, artists, musicians, filmmakers, and editors have become some of AI’s loudest critics. As one recent campaign, co-signed by big names like Scarlett Johansson and Cate Blanchett, said: stealing is not innovation.

And yet, according to a 2026 Stanford report, generative AI is being adopted at historic speed worldwide — faster than either the personal computer or the Internet.

For what it’s worth, I don’t think that AI companies are setting out to destroy the creative class. I think they’re building products that solve a problem for a certain customer: people who want to create without having to spend years mastering a craft.

◾

Of course, that’s an oxymoron because creativity — like all forms of expertise — is inherently laborious. It requires being bad at something for a while, and doing it anyway. It demands vulnerability, rejection, frustration, and repetition. Getting good at being creative is incredibly hard.

But AI offers a solution. It enables you to fast-track parts of the labor and the process. It helps you to write faster, to make more designs, and to automate editing. To create something that looks finished without the same investment of time, effort, blood, sweat, and tears.

That’s appealing to a lot of people. But what does it mean for the information ecosystem?

I’ve long argued that AI will raise the floor of content quality, and the ceiling will also rise. As a result, we’ll get more content than ever before, but much of it will look and feel the same. Mediocrity will become the new baseline.

Those who put in the effort to develop original perspective and truly master their craft will still stand out. In a world of AI sameness, they may stand out even more.

@jesstathemWhat happened to branding and creativity?! Claude and AI are HELPERS not SOLVES for your content. #claude #instagramcarousel #ai

Tiktok failed to load.

Enable 3rd party cookies or use another browser

This will result in different content tiers. Like in food or fashion, fast content will become its own category: abundant, inexpensive, and quickly discarded. On the other hand, slow content – like any artisan craft – will continue to have its place and audience.

◾

But different content classes shouldn’t lead to different information classes. For those of us who care about information quality and equity, our focus needs to be on preventing that from happening.

Both fast and slow content serve a purpose and an audience. Both audiences deserve access to credible information from experts and institutions that exist to serve the public.

All of the public. ◾

In this episode, Jena and Michelle dive into the world of trad wife content: where it comes from, how it evolved from family vlogging into a warmly-lit homesteading aesthetic, and why so many people find it hard to look away.

That conversation serves as the backdrop for Yesteryear, the buzzy debut novel by . Its heroine, Natalie, is a modern-day trad wife influencer who wakes up in 1855 and has to survive the reality she’d been romanticizing online. Jena and Michelle discuss what the book gets right about performance in life and online, where it falls short, and why its premise was compelling enough for Anne Hathaway to purchase the film rights while the manuscript was still a first draft.

IF YOU WANT TO STAY SPOILER-FREE WHILE LISTENING, SKIP AHEAD FROM 26:20-34:30.

They also explore the growing scrutiny of momfluencers and family vlogging, and what impact it can have on the children who appear in their parents’ content.

Plus: Pope Leo has spoken on AI and humanity, and Stephen Colbert says goodbye to The Late Show.

Follow Did You See? with Jena and Michelle on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, or Podcast Addict.

◾

Read our writing about trad wife influencers:

• From #childlesscatladies to #childfreebychoice (Part I), Feed for Thought, 2025.

Check out our recs:

• Like, Follow, Subscribe by Fortesa Latifi, 2026.

• The House of My Mother: A Daughter’s Quest for Freedom by Shari Franke, 2025.

• Bad Influence: The Dark Side of Kidfluencing, 2025.

• The Devil in the Family: The Fall of Ruby Franke, 2025.

• Educated by Tara Westover, 2018.

• An Update on our Family, 2025.

Want to learn more?

• The Caro episode, Diabolical Lies, 2026.

• Child Influencer Project - UK and Ireland, University of Essex.

• I was raised in conservative evangelicialism. Yesteryear missed its mark., The Pomegranate, 2026.

• Meet the queen of the ‘trad wives’ (and her eight children), The Times, 2024.

• MomTok is the apotheosis of 21st-century womanhood, The Atlantic, 2024.

• The rise and fall of the trad wife, The New Yorker, 2024.

• Shari Franke tells all, Under the Influence with Jo Piazza, 2025.

• She gave birth two weeks ago. Now she’s in a beauty pageant., New York Times, 2024.

• The trad wife paradox, What Now? with Trevor Noah (guest: Anne Helen Petersen), 2024.

• TN bill regarding children in social media content heads to gov’s desk, The Tennessean, 2026.

• Utah passed a law to protect child influencers, Teen Vogue, 2025.

• Yesteryear by Caro Claire Burke review – the downfall of an all-American trad wife, The Guardian, 2026.

• Yesteryear with Caro Claire Burke: trad wives, secret lives, and twist ending, Be There in Five, 2026.

Links from the open:

• Anthropic co-founder Chris Olah’s remarks on Pope Leo XIV’s encyclical “Magnifica humanitas,” Anthropic, 2026.

• Magnifica Humanitas, The Holy See, 2026.

• Main takeaways from Pope Leo’s encyclical on AI, New York Times, 2026.

• Only in Monroe, Monroe Community Media, 2026.

• Wanton destruction of CBS property – Letterman & Colbert toss stuff off the roof of the Ed Sullivan, The Late Show with Stephen Colbert, 2026.

◾

About Did You See? with Jena and Michelle

Did you see that? Whether it’s in the news or pop culture, in print or online, we are living in a media overload. It’s a lot to process!

Did You See? is for anyone looking for space to pause and work through the media moments shaping how we see and understand the world.

Michelle Ciulla Lipkin spent 25+ years in media and education — as a media literacy educator, advocate, and CUNY lecturer.

Jena Wuu spent 15+ years in tech and policy — building Uber in Europe and founding Meta’s global information ecosystem program.

Two friends, two different perspectives on the same media landscape, and a shared belief that there’s always something more to the story. ◾

🎧 Listen | 8:44 mins

It’s commencement season, and I’ve been thinking a lot lately about college. My own 20-year reunion is this year, a milestone that can make you look backward and forward at the same time.

I went to Carleton College, a liberal arts school in Minnesota. Having grown up in Alabama, where we had snow days if near-freezing temperatures were forecast, I was sold on Carleton the moment I saw its footage of a student cross-country skiing to class.

Besides the snow, going to Carleton was my first small rebellion. My childhood was sandwiched between two types of conservatism: the political conservatism of my social circles and the traditionalism of my Taiwanese family. Needless to say, I was surrounded by many strong opinions about the right way to live, the right thing to study, and the right kind of work.

So when I tell you that my college experience gave me the most idealized version of higher education, it’s not an exaggeration. Going to college opened my mind and my world — figuratively and literally. It gave me space to experiment with who I might become.

I admit it: when I was at Carleton, most of my classmates leaned left. But of course, conservative students were on campus too. While I can’t speak for them, I personally never felt that our political disagreements would preclude friendship. Despite spirited debates in class, we could still hang out afterwards. We all wanted to help people, even if we disagreed on the details. We all loved Stir-frydays and baking cookies. We all loved Professor Mary Easter.

That said, I had the pleasure of going to college pre-social media, which arrived on our campus in my junior year. Facebook is very different now than it was then.

And so is college.

◾

Today, viewpoint diversity – particularly at elite universities – has become one of the central discussion points about higher education. On one side, critics argue that universities have traded open inquiry for ideological conformity. On another, they say that academic freedom is being conflated with freedom of expression.

At the same time, public trust in colleges and universities – like trust in nearly all institutions – has steadily declined. And in recent years, these debates have advanced from philosophical to political, with concrete consequences. Federal funding for universities has been cut or made conditional. Tenure protections are changing, as are curricula. And with its high cost mixed with an uncertain future of work, more young people are questioning the value of higher education itself.

@avayuergensShould you go to college? 🏫

Tiktok failed to load.

Enable 3rd party cookies or use another browser

And college students are more digitally connected than any previous generation. Whereas I relished the classroom as a gateway to new perspectives and worldviews, today it is just one access point of many. Students – or anyone – can discover new subjects and hold intellectual debates continuously and on repeat, as digital and physical life collapse into each other.

Despite these tensions, there is one thing that university administrators, professors, and students can agree on. A university’s central role is to serve as a place for open inquiry – defined as the ability to ask questions, share ideas, and challenge popular views and assumptions.

So why are universities generally absent from the spaces where open inquiry now happens for most people?

Yes, I’m talking about digital platforms.

You only need to see the footage of the recent altercation between Cornell’s President and students to understand why the omnipresence of phone cameras may feel personal to faculty and staff. Not to mention the relationship between phones and focus in the classroom; AI’s impact on teaching, learning, and intellectual property rights; and the way social media has reshaped who gets seen and treated as experts.

In short: it’s complicated.

◾

Of course, universities are working hard to adapt. Last month, Yale released the findings of a year-long faculty committee on trust in higher education. The report is comprehensive, with recommendations spanning affordability, admissions, and community engagement.

It repeatedly calls for strengthening Yale’s relationships with both internal and external stakeholders – to open the gates and communicate effectively. But when you dig deeper, you see that it mostly refers to traditional tactics like hosting town halls and advisory councils, doing more Yale-centered comms about its mission and decisions, and offering more online learning opportunities.

The report contains almost no meaningful discussion of actual digital participation. It’s a surprising omission, considering the high demand for academic content online, as we saw with the #Hillmantok movement last year. People want content with depth, but in a way that connects with how they live. There needs to be a step between hearing a university’s mission statement and signing up for their course on a learning platform.

@afamstudiesWelcome to Intro to African-American Studies Spring 2025!

Tiktok failed to load.

Enable 3rd party cookies or use another browser

It’s hard to reconcile universities’ commitment to debate and open inquiry with their disengagement from the spaces where these now take place. Doing so not only distances institutions from the public; it also disregards the world that students are stepping into, one that is increasingly shaped online.

Of course, personal agency matters here; not every professor wants a public profile. But universities have every reason – for trust-building as much as for risk management – to support those who want to engage online, and to recognize that work as legitimate.

◾

How can university leaders balance the importance of participating in the digital world with the responsibility to protect the institution as well as faculty, staff, and students?

Every institution will carry different priorities, guardrails, and resourcing. That’s fine; there is no blanket right way to do this.

Here are five ways to start:

1. Develop clear policies on individuals’ digital engagement.

If you’ve been reading Feed for Thought for a while, you know how much I love an internal policy to address issues like online conduct, branding, messaging alignment, and post-employment considerations. I’ve designed plenty of principles-first guidelines for organizations, and while it forces hard conversations, a good policy makes every other decision easier because it gives you a north star and defensible position.

2. Integrate digital literacy into faculty development and student curriculum.

Learning how information flows, how creators build trust, and how to be a responsible consumer online is an essential skill for everyone, whether they make content or not. For those who do, it makes all the difference to have support with deciding which platforms to use, getting started, protecting their safety and privacy, and engaging with others.

3. Make room for both device-free and creator spaces.

You don’t have to have one or the other – they’re complements. I think phone-free classrooms and study areas are a great idea. And recording studios and editing tools belong on campus too.

4. Have a crisis response plan.

Any kind of public engagement comes with risks. The good news is: it’s mostly predictable. When I did crisis response at Uber, having a playbook and knowing everyone’s role in it helped to make intense moments more manageable. And it made sure that we were consistent in protecting our organization, employees, and customers, even in a worst case situation.

5. Offer a carrot.

Beyond making space and time, universities can reduce the stigma around academics’ engaging online. Could public engagement count toward service requirements? Could online writing become part of the academic publishing process? Even small institutional signals can go a long way in framing digital participation as legitimate scholarly work.

◾

Universities once stood at the center of intellectual life because campuses were where open inquiry happened. Today, much of public debate has moved elsewhere.

Will universities join in? ◾

🎧 Listen | 5:54 mins

Friends,

Since emerging from my lurker identity, I’ve been dreaming of starting a podcast. I adore the medium of audio. At the risk of sounding much older than I actually am, I grew up listening to George Burns and Gracie Allen.1 In high school, I volunteered at Alabama Public Radio. As a young adult, I crushed on Ira Glass.

There’s a certain intimacy to audio. Having someone’s voice in your ears while going about your day integrates them into your routine in a way that’s not possible when you have to stop to watch something. And sometimes, visuals can distract you from listening to a speaker’s actual words. From hearing the hesitation or energy in their voice.

But audio isn’t just about nostalgia and romance. It’s a critical part of the information landscape — one that doesn't get nearly enough attention.

◾

Audio endures because it fits into the rhythms of everyday life. If you’re commuting, cleaning, getting ready in the morning, going for a run, cooking, or doing a night-time feeding, audio can accompany you in all of that. And even as digital technologies continue to expand, radio in particular remains critical to the ecosystem because a quarter of the world is still not online – a gap that exists in the United States and Europe as well.

For those with digital access, podcasts’ role in shaping public opinion and politics has become impossible to ignore. In the United States, The Joe Rogan Experience – widely credited with influencing the 2024 Presidential election – has dominated Spotify’s podcast rankings for the last six years, and now tops Apple and YouTube charts as well.

Though audio is broadly seen as effective for engaging disaffected and vulnerable audiences, it faces relatively little scrutiny. And it remains underused as a public information tool.

I’ve seen this play out in my own work. In the push to go digital, institutions running public service campaigns tend to focus on Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, or even the dreaded chatbot. And when individual experts begin to experiment with making content, many gravitate naturally toward writing on platforms like Substack or Medium. Despite its endurance and influence around the world, audio often falls through the cracks in conversations about the digital ecosystem.

◾

That’s why I’ve been so eager to experiment with it myself – and why I knew I could only do it with the brilliant .

Michelle and I have been friends and colleagues for over seven years. Like many adult friendships, we met through work. I had just secured the information ecosystem pilot at Meta, when I connected with the National Association for Media Literacy Education (NAMLE), where Michelle was serving as Executive Director.

What started as a partnership around user education evolved into years of collaboration that included producing new research and doing international advocacy. In Australia and New Zealand, Michelle and I met with researchers and government officials about their upcoming elections, media literacy, and public trust.

What I love about spending time with Michelle is that we bring very different experiences to the table. She has spent 25 years in media and education; I’ve spent 15 years in tech and policy. But we share the same curiosity about how media and technology shape people and societies. And though we’re both in different roles now, our commitment to helping people develop more intentional relationships with media, technology, and information has only grown.

We don’t always agree, but every conversation with Michelle teaches me something new. That’s what Did You See? is about.

◾

In each episode, Michelle and I use specific media moments – from news to entertainment – as starting points to dig deeper into their connections to culture, technology, politics, and the way we understand the world.

My work with Feed for Thought is dedicated to exploring the future of expertise, institutions, and trust. But media shapes far more than professional life or public discourse. It affects daily life: what we pay attention to, what feels true, and how we relate to one another.

That’s the humanity that institutions and the experts within them are meant to serve. We’re all just people living in this world together.

With so many forces colliding at once, our media landscape can feel overwhelming. Michelle and I wanted to create a space to slow down and process it together. I hope you’ll join us.

◾

Listen to our first episode: Did you see that Australia banned social media for kids?

We talk about how a lot of Australian teens are still able to access platforms, whether the policy is working, and whether bans are the right response to the teen mental health crisis. We also discuss the new novel, Yesteryear, and the Met Gala.

You can follow Did You See? with Jena and Michelle on Apple Podcasts or Spotify. I’ll also post episodes here on Feed for Thought.

And as always, I’d love to hear your thoughts, questions, and suggestions for the media moments you’re processing right now. Hit reply to this email; I read every note.

See you out there,

◾

Read our writing about social media and teen mental health

• Michelle Ciulla Lipkin’s response to The Anxious Generation, NAMLE newsletter, 2024.

• Is the online child safety debate for young people, or for adults?, Feed for Thought, 2026.

Check out our recs:

• Is social media bad for kids’ mental health?, Aspen Ideas Festival, 2023.

• Growing Up in Public: Coming of Age in a Digital World by Devorah Heitner, 2023.

Want to learn more?

• Anxious Generation Movement

• Health advisory on social media use in adolescence, American Psychological Advisory, 2023.

• Social Media Minimum Age: Compliance Update, Australia eSafety Commissioner, March 2026.

• Social Media and Youth Mental Health, Office of the Surgeon General (US Department of Health and Human Services), 2023.

• The great rewiring: Is social media really behind an epidemic of teenage mental illness?, Nature, 2024.

• We’re not the anxious generation by Maximilian Milovidov, 2025.

◾

About Did You See? with Jena and Michelle

Did you see that? Whether it’s in the news or pop culture, in print or online, we are living in a media overload. It’s a lot to process!

Did You See? is for anyone looking for space to pause and work through the media moments shaping how we see and understand the world.

Michelle Ciulla Lipkin spent 25+ years in media and education — as a media literacy educator, advocate, and CUNY lecturer.

Jena Wuu spent 15+ years in tech and policy — building Uber in Europe and founding Meta’s global information ecosystem program.

Two friends, two different perspectives on the same media landscape, and a shared belief that there’s always something more to the story. ◾