Thursday, October 4th, 2012
43

The Terrible, Fascinating World Of Hate-Blogs

Jessica Grose: We're here to talk about hate-blogs. In my novel, Sad Desk Salad (shameless self promotion alert), the heroine and her coworkers at a women's website called Chick Habit are plagued by a hate-blogger who reblogs their posts and puts up incriminating, embarrassing personal information about them.

For those who aren't familiar with the phenomenon, hate-blogs are an actual thing. I based the hate-blog in my book (Breaking the Chick Habit, or BTCH) on the hate-blogs I had read up till then: The ones about Jezebel, the Pioneer Woman, and Julia Allison.

I asked you to join me in this chat because you’ve covered sites like this for Gawker, and you're an expert in the darkest recesses of Internet culture. To start off, I have one question for you: Whyyyyy?! That is, what is it that possesses people to start blogs where every post is basically just ad hominem attacks of a person or a website? (I have an explanation for the hate blogger in my book but it’s a spoiler to discuss it.)

Adrian Chen: Well, what posses someone to make a fan site, where they slavishly gush over everything a person or entity does? It's passion. To me the hate-blog phenomenon is basically anti-fandom: someone is totally obsessed with something but instead of expressing their passion through love, it's hate. It's a totally different product but comes from that same root, irrational fixation on the thing in question.

Jessica: But the people they're fixating on don’t seem like a big enough deal, in most cases, to encourage such an obsession. Have you observed a particular quality in the Internet types who end up having hate-blogs dedicated to them?

Adrian: Yeah, I think the more someone's Internet persona depends on them being a "real person," the more they attract these kinds of crazy obsessive hate-bloggers. The logic is almost the opposite of what you'd think, where the fact they're small-time means it's more appropriate to hate on them like you would a real-life enemy. What's the point in dedicating a hate-blog to, like, Lindsay Lohan when you know she'll never read it?

Jessica: That seems right. When the commenters convene in these blogs, I've noticed two common responses to the reason for their obsession. 1. They claim they actually want the person they're blogging about to change (be less narcissistic, write about things that are less frivolous, etc.); or 2. They are projecting some major personal baggage—comparing the person blogging to someone they hate in their actual life.

Adrian: Yeah, I think all hate-bloggers are either secret fans or disillusioned fans. I sent you those links about Kotakoti, the American model in Japan who's attracted a huge community of hate-bloggers.

Jessica: Yes! The community that hates her is both enormous AND international! Why do they care so much if she Photoshops her pics? I don't understand!

I was seeing it rise more with Tumblr, where reblogging was such an innate feature that it made just saying something nasty about someone else's posts 100 times easier.

Adrian: Well, that's the thing, their hate basically boils down to the fact that she's phony because she 'shops her pics to look cuter and more like a real-life anime doll. But then they have huge threads on their forums where they post pictures of themselves Photoshopped the EXACT same way, only it's like, "Ha ha, look at me, I'm lame like Kotakoti." But clearly these girls have spent enormous amounts of time learning how to do exactly what they rip on her about.

Jessica: Ahhh, what?

Adrian: Yeah, it's weird. This is what teens do these days I guess.

Jessica: The youth! Speaking of which, you had mentioned to me earlier that there's been somewhat of an evolution in hate-blogging since I first noticed the phenomenon (which was probably like, 08 or 09?). I was seeing it rise more with Tumblr, where reblogging was such an innate feature that it made just saying something nasty about someone else's posts 100 times easier. But how would you describe the way the genre has changed over the past three or four years?

Adrian: It's weirdly mirrored regular media. Hate-blogs are on the decline. It's all about hate-social media accounts. I think some of the craziest stuff is going on on Twitter, where people make dozens of troll accounts or whatever and really try to destroy someone's online life.

Jessica: Does the motivation seem to be the same?

Adrian: Yeah. I mean it's always about getting a reaction from the person, and Twitter makes it way more satisfying because it's in real time.

Jessica: What is the success rate of a Twitter hater? Like do they usually push the person offline? The object d'hatred that is.

Adrian: Hmm, I don't know. Twitter is such a trollful medium that it's almost like they get lost in the shuffle. Although there was that guy who just wrote about how he got driven off twitter by his troll. Leo Traynor.

Jessica: He was the guy who discovered that his friend's son was the troll, right? That story was terrifying.

Adrian: Yeah. Really crazy. I don't know if that's exactly a hate-blogger, more like a crazy stalker, although the lines sometimes blur.

Jessica: In most cases, it seems like the hate-blogger doesn't personally know his or her target, though. That's been my impression. Any time they get someone who actually does know the target in the comments or via email, it's like they're investigative journalists all of the sudden.

Adrian: Yeah, there this definitely this idea of pulling back the curtain on whoever they're hating on, with that kind of stuff. But again it's like, are they actually trying to expose them or just really want to know more?

Jessica: Ah, I don't know! Has any hate blog ever done anything "good" or worthwhile? Like, has any true muckracking ever occurred because of a hate-blogger's dedication?

Adrian: Hmmm. I wrote a while ago about this horrible website Stickydrama, which was basically a gossip blog for tween e-celebrities. There were a couple hate-blogs dedicated to that site, I think run by parents of the girls that they'd write about, and I actually got some good tips from them. There was also this whole Livejournal community dedicated to e-celebs that sort of rallied together to expose Christopher Stone, the founder of Stickydrama; they were really nasty themselves, but knew so much about the site that they were a good resource.

Jessica: So the torch-wielding Internet mobs can occasionally be a force for semi-good. That is almost heartening? Not really.

Adrian: It's all about channeling the hate to something more hateful than the hate.

Jessica: Okay, time to get servicey: If you were giving advice to someone who was plagued by a hate-blog, what would you tell them. Ignore? Engage? Bring in blog authorities? Or actual legal authorities?

Adrian: I guess it would depend on what level you're getting it at. If it's manageable, it might actually be a good thing. Haters make you famous, etc. It's amazing how much the hater narrative has been incorporated into the entertainment industry, you know? It seems like every young female act, some storyline about how she's dealing with her haters is pushed, and you see a lot of people sort of blowing up like base-level hate and making it part of their story. So maybe you can hate-judo it.

Jessica: HATE-JUDO!

Adrian: That's my new self-help concept.

Jessica: TM. Brand that shit now.

Adrian: "Hate-Judo your way to e-fame and fortune. Just try to attract as much hate as you can and good things will happen." (Kidding…)

It seems like every young female act, some storyline about how she's dealing with her haters is pushed, and you see a lot of people sort of blowing up like base-level hate and making it part of their story.

But I'm not actually a huge fan of the "don't feed the trolls" approach, because it's sort of blaming the victim. Why should everyone have to deal with horrible people with saintly composure? I think if you can sort of shame them in a non-hysterical way, that's more effective than just ignoring it and also it gets rid of the fantasy that you're not actually reading the hate-blogs, because everyone knows you are so don't even pretend.

Jessica: That is sound advice. Anything else we're neglecting to mention about the terrible yet vaguely fascinating world of hate-blogging?

Adrian: How did you deal with the hate-blogging when you were at Jezebel? I don't think Gawker has a dedicated hate-blog.

Jessica: Jezebel didn't really have a hate-blog per se when I was there (they got them after I left). But what they did have was several fringe blogs started by disgruntled commenters who had been, like, core, obsessive Jez fans who became disappointed with the direction of the site for reasons that were never entirely clear?

Adrian: Oh yeah, Gawker has those too!

Jessica: So yeah, then those people would start their own sites, most of which petered out after a year or two.

Adrian: This is the latest one of Gawker's.

Jessica: What was funny about that was always the feeling they had like, THIS SITE SHOULD CATER TO ME AND ME SPECIFICALLY! Like you could… just stop reading the site if you didn't like it anymore? It didn't betray you deliberately.

Adrian: Haha, yeah, it's such a fraught relationship people have with websites.

Jessica: Right? I mean, I always thought those websites were slightly sweet too, because they had created their own little communities, which I admired, and they seemed really psyched about that.

Adrian: Were there any Jez commenter weddings? There were at least two Gawker commenter weddings.

Jessica: What!? That is amazing! I have never heard of a Jez commenter wedding, but it's possible.

Adrian: Yeah, I've been trying to get someone to do a story about it because I think it's the funniest/coolest thing, but in a roundabout way that brings us back to the topic at hand. I think a lot of what drives these hate-blogs is the community that grows up around them. Like people are THRILLED that they found a bunch of other people who hate something as passionately as they do. A lot of Internet culture, I think, boils down to the bond between people who find other people who are into very specific, very strange things, and hating on a semi-famous person or blog definitely fits into that



Related: Why We Hate-Search



Jessica Grose is the author of the novel Sad Desk Salad (buy it now!) and co-author of Love, Mom. She is also a freelance writer and editor who lives (where else) in Brooklyn. Adrian Chen is a staff writer at Gawker. Here is his Twitter.

43 Comments / Post A Comment

Megan@twitter (#44,868)

I found myself in a cycle of reading a hate-blog (Get Off My Internets, which mostly hates mommy bloggers and healthy living bloggers) but it ended up making me like a lot of the blogs that the site hated. So then I was hate-reading the hate-site and it was making me crazy, so I stopped the entire thing and now my life is much better for it.

From my experience with personal blogs and their associated hate-sites, it seemed like super-restrictive comment policing often inflamed the haters. Blogs that ruthlessly deleted any hint of negativity (however well-intentioned) drove people to hate sites where people were really obsessed with the "what is she hiding?" mentality.

DogsOf War@twitter (#238,409)

While we do occasionally have our peters out we shall never peter out.

Crasstalk@twitter (#238,412)

Crass actually started before the giant Gawker community split. It was originally just kind of a fun space for some people who commented on Gawker to write about stuff that interested them. It was only after the redesign that we became kind of a counterpoint to Gawker. However, we have now kind of developed into our own community with a point of view that has little to do with Gawker hate. We actually just launched a second site last week. I guess it is only a matter of time before we have our own hate-blog.

cherrispryte (#444)

Oooh, this post is really right up my alley, and you've hit a lot of things right on the money. But I'd say that there's something more to hate sites than just a weird obsession.
The anti-Jezebel tumblrs, from my familiarity, were mostly due to changes in the site and its commentariat, which, the more you loved the site when it first started, the more disappointed you get when the site changes, editors become openly racist, etc. Jezebel when it first came out was a really important website for a lot of people, and to see that change in a way that's perceived as negative was really hard. Yes, maybe websites shouldn't be important to people, but, well, they are. Especially a site like Jezebel, where the commenters were so close-knit and so supportive of each other – it becomes more than a website, it's a community of people, so people feel some degree of ownership towards it, rightfully or no.
And you linked to an anti-Pioneer Woman site! (I may or may not have a commenter account on that site's forum. Ahem.) That's an even more complicated situation – Ree Drummond, who styles herself as the Pioneer Woman, is essentially a gigantic fraud, and people obsessively love her. And I think it's incredibly frustrating for people to read her site and compare it to their own lives – she's obscenely rich, has tons of support staff, and has clearly been calculating her own rise to fame for years. Yet, her site has this attitude like, oh, little old me in my holely yoga pants just happened to stumble onto multiple cookbook deals, kid's book deals, a Food Network show, and who knows what the hell else at this point. She's completely fake, but never says so, and her "you can be just like me!!" style has left a justifiably bad taste in a lot of people's mouths.
So I think a lot of hate sites start out with an understandable complaint or grievance, and then just snowball, because, let's be honest, at the end of the day, judging and mocking people can be an awful lot of fun.

cherrispryte (#444)

@cherrispryte God, self, verbose much?

stuffisthings (#1,352)

@cherrispryte Yeah I clicked through to a couple of those, and the anti-Jezebel one seemed to be just a pretty straight up critique of the ludicrous comments. As opposed the Julia Allison one which seems super-personal and stalkery and made me feel dirty just to look at.

cherrispryte (#444)

@stuffisthings I am completely unfamiliar with the Julia Allison one, and I should probably point out that I disagree with some of the anti Pioneer Woman one as well (For example, some people mock her kids. That, to me, crosses a line.) Anti Jezebel sites, though? Come sit by me.

petejayhawk (#1,249)

@stuffisthings Yeah, but wasn't Gawker a Julia Allison hateblog?

skahammer (#587)

@cherrispryte But we're all gigantic frauds in various ways. Most of us only get away with it because we're not important enough to reblog. Or blog.

julebsorry (#5,783)

@cherrispryte Yes yes! Hateblogs aside (yuck), as a former "core, obsessive Jez fan who became disappointed with the direction of the site" I feel that many of us tried agonizingly hard to voice the reasons behind our collective discontent, but weren’t really heard. The main concern was obviously the proposed changes to the commenting system that threatened to (and did, eventually) fundamentally change a community that many commenters felt fiercely protective of. Obviously, it’s probably silly to feel personally protective of a website commenting community. However, exactly as cherrisprye says: rightly or wrongly, the site quickly became personally meaningful to many people after it launched (in a way that Deadspin or Jalopnik probably aren’t). Feelings of hurt were deepened after Gawker's apparent blowoff of any objections by the old guard commentariat, breezily rolling out big changes to all sites and brusquely informing objectors that their opinions were hyperbolic, uninformed, and made by people just irrationally afraid of change. I know I felt like I was basically told “read it or don’t, we don’t care”…which, being pretty pigheaded myself, drove me away from the site (AJ Daulerio’s “hilarious” day of guest-blogging didn’t help, obvs, and actually at the time felt like an intentional move to drive readers like me away).

But it's not a big deal – I stopped commenting on Jez, but the comments still seem to be going strong when I pop in every few weeks (although I worry about SlayBelle, who must be pulling crazy overtime to dam the troll invasion at Jez now). I found other sites to read, and the world turns, completely unaffected by my personal internet browsing preferences. People that decide to make hateblogs instead of just moving on probably would do better to direct all that energy to something more productive and positive.

bluebears (#5,902)

@cherrispryte Ok but that's what I don't get. Who cares if Ree has been calculating her rise to fame for years and is already rich? I mean, let me say I've made some of her recipes but never got too into her personal story one way or the other so I'm not an expert. But I don't think she's ever claimed to be…not any of those things? Yes she presents a "down home" attitude (whatever that means) but that doesn't necessarily mean poor. You know? I don't know. Hate sites like that (and mostly GOMI) really just confuse me.

cherrispryte (#444)

@bluebears From what I've read, people care because she presents this impossible version of life as if it's easily attainable, and then people feel bad about themselves when they inevitably fall short. And then they get frustrated watching other people worship her, because they feel she doesn't deserve it. Also, a lot of people active on the anti-Pioneer Woman sites are involved with ranching themselves, and they take offense to her false portrayal of it.

bluebears (#5,902)

@cherrispryte I guess but I mean what celebrity doesn't present some impossible version of life? I mean I hear what you're saying and I see how those things can be annoying but to me it doesn't explain the level of sheer fixation and hatred.

cherrispryte (#444)

@bluebears I mean, she's only become a celebrity in the past, what, year or two? Her blog's been around – and been super-popular – far longer than that. The impossibility of her life didn't just appear when the TV cameras showed up, its always been there.
And you're right – the people who run these sites take mid-level annoyances and crusade against them, the response is disproportionate. But as I said in my first comment, mocking people can be an awful lot of fun. I'm not saying that's the right thing to do, but it can be enjoyable.

bluebears (#5,902)

@cherrispryte No I hear you. I can even understand reading the sites from time to time. But it's the idea of setting up the whole website and then painstakingly following these people's lives that weirds me out. That being said I will read ANYTHING that rips on Paltrow. Videogum is a particular favorite.

umlauts (#234,147)

@cherrispryte Indeed! I feel like there can be a distinction made between hate blogs and blogs which are set up to criticize sites that don't allow criticism on their own pages- unfortunately, I think the latter ends up becoming the former after a while. A lot of the anti-Jezebel tumblrs seem to contain both criticism of the site itself interspered with attacks on the commenters, particularly attacking them for being too uptight and feminist. And of course, guess which posts are more popular…

I do admit that I follow some tumblrs that might be termed hate blogs- ones criticizing Dan Savage and Shakesville, for example. I never thought of them, or the Jezebel ones for that matter, as hate blogs, though. Their single-minded focus does seem creepy at times (such is the nature of Tumblr), but I think they can provide a valuable counterpoint to the groupthink that tends to happen around those influential people/site. That seems quite different from piling on Julia Allison becuase she's annoying.

The problem is commenters on Gawker/Jezebel make their little hateblogs on tumblr to dissect the "trolls" they encounter on GM. I don't know if it's a fault of tumblr formatting but these people will take things you said in the comments and repost them to their tumblrs with no context and edited for their convenience. It's one thing to get banned from Jezebel because you're not cool enough to hang out with the mean girls (seriously, that's why you get called a troll, you aren't sticking to the script.) But it's quite another issue to google your username and discover scores of tumblrs have reprinted your comments, dissected them, and rearranged the meaning of your words to make you sound like a moron.

I just don't understand how they're able to do this given that anything published on GM including comments is considered the property of GM. Sites like Fucknojezebel steal that content to capitalize on work people created for a completely different forum.

stuffisthings (#1,352)

Wait, I thought The Awl was a Gawker hate site?

@stuffisthings Yeah, but who cares? It's people like those awlcommenators that really make me nervous.

Sheila (#44)

But what about the people who deserve hate sites?
Like Julia.

NA (#235,216)

@Sheila LOL

City_Dater (#2,500)

@Sheila

Hee, hee.

However, I suspect that call is coming from inside the house…

marialights (#238,514)

@Sheila lol

pissy elliott (#397)

Why is it that all these people who trade in mocking people on the Internet turn into total white knights when they lose control of the narrative?

Sheila (#44)

@pissy elliott They want all the hating for themselves.

Titania (#8,471)

I started reading the Julia Allison hate site because I was interested enough in Julia Allison to want to know what she was doing, but disliked her enough to not want to give any additional clicks to anything she wrote. And now that she's basically not blogging anymore, those people are amazing content aggregators, culling her posts and photos from far more sources than I have any interest in following. I definitely wouldn't say I hate her (although she was definitely rude to me at a couple of parties in NYC) but I think the giant multimedia show they have going on around her is funny.

NA (#235,216)

In the past, a woman bore a scarlet letter for her offenses. Now, she has a hate site. It's an age old way of inflicting shame on people who deserve it.

Personally, I wish there was a hate site for Cup of Jo. She is the fakest person on the internet.

Titania (#8,471)

@NA I walked by her the other day in the West Village, while she was paused at a corner on her bike Instagramming something. Her son was all bobbleheaded and adorable in his little baby bike seat, and she was wearing a plaid shirt, boyfriend jeans, Bensimon sneakers, and glasses. She may be "fake" in the parlance of our times, but in a literal sense, what you see is apparently what you get.

Also, I just have to vent how creepy I feel every time I recognize her kid around the neighborhood. So, so creepy, with no reason to feel creepy, but I still do. I recognize him with no more ardor than I recognize her, but I genuinely wish I could un-know the face of an innocent toddler.

NA (#235,216)

@Titania I've seen her around the hood too (sidebar- hey neighbor!) but i HATE her constantly fakey sunny, "darlings, wouldn't you just love to go to capri this weekend? xoxo, jo" tone and on a more serious note, when she has gotten called out for plagiarizing old posts that she's done for Glamour for her blog, she flat out denies it and goes about her "ho hum, lalala xoxo" business without addressing what's going on. This has happened on a number of occasions and it has really soured me on her. She has no journalistic integrity even though she makes a shit-ton of money from her blog/pimping out her dumb sex tips and her baby.

fb100003964691892 (#238,415)

Probably not a coincidence that these sites are all (or are almost all) about women.

jolie (#16)

@Ashley Lange@facebook: Eh, this is a pretty small sample of hatesites. I used to be a mod on a hateread forum that targeted a bunch of guys — Eric Schaeffer and Tucker Max and the like. Tucker Max has a few hate sites, deservedly, devoted to him. I'm certain there are others.

Related: Miss u every day, Tucker Max Message Board.

LadyHazard (#5,067)

I, for one, can't wait until we progress to the higher plane of hate-blogging: Creating an entire hate blog about a single comment.

Spencer Lund (#2,331)

hating the hatred of hate blogs dot blogspot dot net

muffin (#238,423)

Although I agree that the hate on Kotakoti can get extensive in some cases, that girl is not exactly a saint either and I do think she deserves to be called out for a lot of her actions. We are talking about a girl who will approve youtube comments from other teenage girls saying something like, "you're so pretty, I wish I was so pretty, I want to kill myself" while rejecting and blocking you if you ask her what music she used on a video. She accepts those kinds of comments while also denying that she photoshops her videos/images, claiming instead to be "all natural". This is clearly a girl who revels in others' jealousy of her even if those others feel horrible about themselves when they see her fake images (which she pretends are natural). Kotakoti is definitely not a total victim in all of this. Also, you seem to have glossed over all of the threads discussing her racism and homophobia. In fact, she actually once made a video of her and her sister making fun of Asians, the exact demographic she's trying to win over now. Rather than acknowledging this and properly apologizing for it, she's trying to make it seem as if it never happened.

But, like I said, some people go beyond calling her out. Some people actually do bully her. Some people insult or pick apart her real looks rather than just pointing out what she's photoshopped. In my opinion, that's not right. If those people really cared about the impact that media images have on girls, they would not pick apart her NATURAL appearance.

Jale Pekcan@twitter (#238,442)

I have found your website on SEO

Most about [URL="http://www.kefline"]Rusça Kaynak[/URL]

jolie (#16)

Note: The opinions expressed below do not necessary reflect those of the author

The anti-Jezebel Awl tumblrs, from my familiarity, were mostly due to changes in the site and its commentariat, which, the more you loved the site when it first started, the more disappointed you get when the site changes, editors become openly racist sexist and trollbait-y, etc. Jezebel The Awl when it first came out was a really important website for a lot of people, and to see that change in a way that's perceived as negative was really hard. Yes, maybe websites shouldn't be important to people, but, well, they are. Especially a site like Jezebel The Awl, where the commenters were so close-knit and so supportive of each other – it becomes more than a website, it's a community of people, so people feel some degree of ownership towards it, rightfully or no.

NinetyNine (#98)

"My forthcoming book on hate blogs is good."

fifthsession (#238,447)

I run a hate-blog. It is a very small, niche-focus hate-blog that I'm sure nobody on The Awl has heard of. I ONLY post about content, not the personal lives of the people who run the site that I hate-blog. One of the editors of the site posted nude pictures of herself on her personal tumblr, and people keep sending me links to it and asking me to talk about it, which I think is in a totally different realm, and kind of insane that they would want me to do that. I don't insult the authors of the site in question (not even their intelligence, which is hard sometimes!) but I do make fun of the things they post. I think this can be a positive thing.

Hey. This is the person behind that Kotakoti "hate-blog" you linked to above. It's obvious you didn't do much research into "hate-blogs" before writing this and linking to me because:
1.I don't run a hate blog (I have a less than positive opinion about Kota, yes, but I write about her from a psychological standpoint rather than making derogratory remarks about her real appearance like legit "hate-blogs") and this is stated in my blog's description and has been since it's creation.
2. If you did your homework, you'd know my blog is just my opinion and having an (mostly negative but I aim to be constructive) opinion doesn't make someone a hater (side note: would you call someone who speaks out about Hitler on their blog to be a hater? You'd probably say no as their opinion is more than justified. Just because you don't see the damage Kota's actions has done (which they have, all is explained in my post to Kotakoti whiteknights esp. her claiming legal ownership over the opinions of "haters" i.e copyfraud, and her damaging the self-esteem and self-worth of thousands of impressionable girls by lying about photoshop use by perpetuating a beauty ideal of "perfection as reality when it's unattainable etc.), doesn't mean my opinions aren't justified and that I'm not within my rights to speak my mind)
3.I don't hate the people (that's right my blog isn't just about Kotakoti) I write about therefore is not even a blog dedicated to her.
4. if you did your research, you would have found numerous blogs that could be considered "hate-blogs" and would have been more appropriate to link to.
5. this article would have been more interesting had you enquired about the reasons why someone would run a "hate-blog" instead of having a one-opinioned conversation about "hate-blogs" thus adding nothing of note to the debate on "hate-blogs" and being nothing more than a shameless plug for your book. It would have been more interesting to add conflicting views and also, if you asked the right people, it wouldn't have been a problem to acquire. But instead, you decided to go with an incredibly general and ignorant view of what Kotakoti non-fans/truth bloggers actually do. Personally, I'm trying to spread awareness on someone who's trying to silence the internet of negative opinions about them instead of addressing concerns like any normal individual.

Sooo how does that make me a "hate-blogger"? Does that mean all critics, anyone who has a negative-view on things or anyone who makes an observation against something are "haters" too? If so, then the writers of this article are my haters and are embarrassing themselves with their own blatant hypocrisy.
Seriously, do you not know the difference between having a negative opinion and being a flat-out hater? A "legit Kotakoti hater" says stuff like "eww she's fat irl" which I have never done on my blog as it's not fair to make remarks regarding her real appearance other than her irl self doesn't look like her shopped self. But thanks anyway for linking my blog and sending your audience my way :p

Susannaf (#231,800)

"Jessica: Jezebel didn't really have a hate-blog per se when I was there (they got them after I left). But what they did have was several fringe blogs started by disgruntled commenters who had been, like, core, obsessive Jez fans who became disappointed with the direction of the site for reasons that were never entirely clear?"

I've been reading Jez since the beginning and I saw many very clear, articulate accounts of why people got disillusioned with the blog. Like that time Jezebel posted images of a woman being raped. The commenters who objected to that weren't asking for a special site dedicated to them. They were calling the site out.

Commentsa (#246,207)

But the people they're fixating on don’t seem like a big enough deal, in most cases, to encourage such an obsession. saffron extract reviews

Post a Comment