Careercow Taylor Lorenz - Crybully "journalist", self-appointed Internet Hall Monitor, professional victim, stalks teenagers for e-clout

  • 🐕 I am attempting to get the site runnning as fast as possible. If you are experiencing slow page load times, please report it.
DEBOONKING the ""misinfo"" that covid lockdowns, remote learning, and social distancing caused any kind of harm to children. (🤡)
I love that she's just posting the same shitty YouTube video to random people. Social distancing is the obvious cause unless you reject, like, all the studies about education ever. And the effect would be drastically unequal hitting the people she claims to champion. But Taylor doesn't care because she thought the shut-in utopia was finally here.
 
DEBOONKING the ""misinfo"" that covid lockdowns, remote learning, and social distancing caused any kind of harm to children. (🤡)
She'll never have children so she can't speak for parents. She also has no friends either so she doesn't know how much social distancing hurt people. She also cannot say that internet could have helped because her book has been widely destroyed by both political sides.
 
It seems a libel lawsuit against Tay Tay and the NY Times is going forward.
From Judge Edgardo Ramos's decision Tuesday in Jacob v. Lorenz (S.D.N.Y.) (the underlying allegedly libelous article appears to be the one here):

Plaintiffs Ariadna Jacob and her company, Influences, Inc., brought this defamation action against Defendants Taylor Lorenz and the New York Times. Plaintiffs allege that a New York Times article authored by Lorenz included several defamatory statements about Jacob….
[T]he Court granted in part and denied in part Defendants' motion to dismiss the second amended complaint … on June 21, 2023. The Court held that Plaintiffs had sufficiently alleged a claim with respect to one statement in the article suggesting that Jacob had leaked an individual's nude photographs. Defendants now move for reconsideration and ask the Court to dismiss the surviving claim based on that statement…. [T]he motion is DENIED….
[The] lone surviving statement—referred to here and in the Court's prior opinions as Statement 12—concerns Jacob's alleged distribution of nude photographs of influencer Devion Young.
On August 11, 2020, Lorenz emailed Jacob and her team with a list of details that she was "planning to report." That list included the assertion that "Ms. Jacob distributed illicit photos of Mr. Young to others (Note: we have screen recordings showing these messages)." Jacob's representative responded with a statement from Jacob's attorney that said: "Illicit photos of Mr. Young were brought to Ms. Jacob's attention. As Influences was working on multiple business transactions with Mr. Young, Ms. Jacob informed an internal consultant of the pictures [sic] existence, but at no point did she publicly 'leak' the photos, as Mr. Young has claimed."


The next day, Lorenz replied: "Regarding Mr. Young's illicit photos, Mr. Young is not alleging that Ms. Jacob publicly 'leaked' photos. Rather, we have screen recordings showing that Ms. Jacob distributed these photos to others via text message. Does Ms. Jacob care to comment, clarify, or respond to this?" Jacob's attorney answered: "Before responding to this point, are you able to share the videos referenced here for accuracy and validity?" Lorenz stated that the materials could not be shared. And she reiterated that "Mr. Young and others are alleging that Ms. Jacob privatley [sic] distributed Mr. Young's illicit photos to others. No one is alleging that she publicly leaked them." Jacob's representative referred Lorenz to the statement provided by Jacob's attorney. In a final follow-up message providing an updated list of allegations, Lorenz included the assertion: "Ms. Jacob privately distributed nude photos of Devion Young via text message." Jacob's representative again referred Lorenz to the statement from Jacob's attorney.
The article was published on August 14, 2020. With respect to the photographs of Young, the article stated: "'Right before we parted ways she leaked my nudes and sent them to business partners, people in my house and potential investors to slander my name, saying I was unprofessional,' Mr. Young said. 'Ms. Jacob informed an internal consultant of the picture's existence,' Ms. Jacob's lawyer wrote, and clarified that she did not 'publicly' leak the photos."
According to the SAC, the article "alleged that Jacob leaked the photos to industry people for leverage because Young wanted to leave." Plaintiffs assert that this claim "is completely false, and Defendants knew it." The photographs became public weeks before Plaintiffs and Young decided to part ways, so Jacob could not have leaked them in retaliation. Plaintiffs also state that, at the time, Influences had no "business partners" to whom Jacob could have "leaked" the photographs. The SAC does acknowledge that Jacob informed an Influences staff member about the photographs and alerted Young's house manager to the situation. But Plaintiffs allege that "[a]t no point did Jacob publicly disseminate or 'leak' the photographs." …
[In the earlier decision, t]he Court explained that "the relevant prepublication communications show that Lorenz called into question the truth of the assertion that Jacob 'leaked' the photos, and she nevertheless published the statement saying as much." …
Defendants argue that reconsideration is warranted because "the Court misconstrued the record by failing to distinguish between Ms. Lorenz's use of the phrase 'publicly leaked' and the unmodified term 'leaked.'". According to Defendants, "both parties understood the word 'leak' just meant 'unauthorized disclosure.'" By contrast, the parties used the term "publicly leak" to refer to "a broader public disclosure." Based on this purported distinction, Defendants assert that the Court "clearly erred in concluding that Ms. Lorenz understood the word 'leak' to be synonymous with 'publicly leak.'"
These arguments are not persuasive. As the Court explained in its prior opinion, Lorenz's prepublication messages distinguished between allegations that Jacob "privately distributed" the photos and allegations that Jacob "publicly leaked" the photos. The communications revealed Lorenz's understanding "that (1) 'leaking' connotes sharing something with a broad audience rather than privately, and that (2) 'no one' alleged that Jacob had leaked Young's photos." Despite that understanding, the article included Young's quote that Jacob "leaked my nudes and sent them to business partners, people in my house, and potential investors." As the Court explained, that statement suggested that Jacob both leaked the photos and privately distributed them to business partners and others.
Defendants' proposed distinction between "leaked" and "publicly leaked" does not change the Court's conclusion. For one, the parties' prepublication communications do not indicate that Lorenz was drawing such a distinction. Lorenz repeatedly referred to allegations that Jacob had "distributed illicit photos of Mr. Young to others." Lorenz also made clear to Jacob's team that "Mr. Young is not alleging that Ms. Jacob publicly 'leaked' photos."
None of these statements, however, support Defendants' assertion that Lorenz understood "leak" to mean "any unauthorized disclosure of information." In fact, Lorenz's messages did not even use the term "leak" without the "publicly" qualifier. It is difficult to see how the emails could show Lorenz's understanding of a distinction between two terms when she used only one of them. As the case progresses, of course, Defendants will have the opportunity to offer evidence demonstrating that Lorenz understood the two phrases to have different meanings. But at this stage, drawing all reasonable inferences in Plaintiffs' favor, the Court cannot conclude that Lorenz was relying on Defendants' proposed distinction.
Nor is the Court persuaded by Defendants' argument that using the term "leak" to refer to the private sharing of information is "wholly consistent" with language in Supreme Court and Second Circuit decisions. Regardless of how courts have used the term in opinions about unrelated subjects such as insider trading or naval movements, the question is how Lorenz understood the term—as Defendants themselves acknowledge. Again, based on the record as it stands, the Court cannot say that Lorenz clearly understood the terms "leaked" and "publicly leaked" to have two distinct meanings.
{Defendants' reply brief also cites several cases using the term "'leak' to mean disclosure to an individual or small group." Again, these cases cannot establish Lorenz's understanding of the term. But they are also inapposite because they appear not to involve situations where the material disclosed was already public. In this case, the SAC asserts that the photographs had been in circulation for weeks at the time Jacob allegedly distributed them.}
Finally, Defendants insist that Statement 12 "does not accuse Ms. Jacob of broadly distributing the photographs of Mr. Young to the public at large, but instead focuses on her admitted private disclosure." That argument cannot be reconciled with the text of Statement 12, which said that Jacob "leaked [Young's] nudes and sent them to business partners, people in [Young's] house and potential investors." If the language before "and" had been omitted, this case might look different: Defendants could argue that the alleged distributions to business partners and others were consistent with the allegations Lorenz described in her prepublication emails. Instead, however, the article suggested that Jacob both leaked the photos and privately distributed them to others. That was inconsistent with Lorenz's prepublication characterization of the allegations….
Note that the case turns on the issue of knowing or reckless falsehood by defendants (so-called "actual malice") because New York law so requires. For the court's originally June 21 decision, see here.
 
Only the Lügenpresse could have the gall to announce they're firing 10% of all their employees and this is somehow AVOIDING layoffs. Lmao.
It seems a libel lawsuit against Tay Tay and the NY Times is going forward.
Good. I'm sick of these absolute scum taking advantage of their privileged positions to destroy the reputations of normal people with impunity.

Lorenz is absolute garbage scum.
 
If the language before "and" had been omitted, this case might look different: Defendants could argue that the alleged distributions to business partners and others were consistent with the allegations Lorenz described in her prepublication emails. Instead, however, the article suggested that Jacob both leaked the photos and privately distributed them to others. That was inconsistent with Lorenz's prepublication characterization of the allegations
:story: at how this is Taylor's fault.
 
Taylor had a chat with Hamas Piker for Interview magazine. It's about as tedious as you'd expect.

headline

blurb

Link | Archive

 
Did the photographer or the editor of this piece actually hate her? These are the most bizarrely unflattering photos I think I've ever seen of her. Who said "let's run the photo of her hunched over like a troll with a keyboard on her head?" I saw that picture yesterday (without a caption) and thought "how odd, that 60 year old woman looks a lot like Taylor Lorenz" but really did not believe it was her.
 
She would rather believe that getting COVID caused a generational IQ drop than the simple fact that kids need face-to-face interaction to learn and grow.
An absolute self righteous cunt that will argue with people presenting first hand evidence and tell them they're wrong.

I hope she is never allowed to be put in charge of children - not that her dusty old womb will ever produce anything anyway.
 
I’m all for personal expression, but if you’re going to have publicity photos taken, someone really should take you aside and politely tell you to dress more appropriately for your age and body.

Though kudos if the photog hated her. The hag haunch keyboard pose, the Elderly Florida Cougar-wannabe carrying the tv and if the girl from the ring was a drowned grandma in the mirror photos really capture her essence.
 
The one with the keyboard on her head might be one of the scariest images I've seen so far this October.

She looks like some kind of Japanese Yokai, the spirit of an old woman who died hunting and pecking at her keyboard while trying to make a facebook post to her grandkids.

Now her spirit wanders households wearing the keyboard she died with as a hat, scaring children she comes across by appearing suddenly and asking whether she should've clicked "yes" on an internet popup about cleaning her computer for free.
 
Back