Bluesky, a social media platform positioned as an alternative to X (formerly Twitter), is generating conversation and mockery with many Americans still on X.
Liberals tout Bluesky as a less divisive, less objectionable escape from Elon Musk’s platform, which has recently seen a leftist exodus. But many online, like Joe Rogan, mock the platform, saying it’s a leftist echo chamber.
🚨Joe Rogan on Bluesky and Rumble:
"They keep trying to say people are going to Bluesky. You know if you go to Bluesky and say there are two genders you get banned instantly? Blue sky is just the newest echo chamber of the old Twitter. It's all these Stephen King dorks that go… pic.twitter.com/mv8Rbar7xJ
Liberals embrace Bluesky as a sanctuary from what they see as the chaos and lack of moderation on X under Elon Musk.
Conservatives critique Bluesky for fostering echo chambers and stifling debate, likening it to the heavily censored Twitter, prior to Musk buying it.
Criticisms center on perceived ideological policing and fears Bluesky will become another fragmented niche in the polarized media landscape.
These sentiments play into discussions about the death of legacy media for news and political discourse, liberal rejections of Musk and X, and questions about moderation versus free speech.
Liberals Rage Quit X
Many say Bluesky’s growing user base is comprised of over-serious liberals or trolls from the right wing. Liberals heading to Bluesky cite dissatisfaction with X’s transformation under Elon Musk.
Liberal Concerns with X
Liberals say X has abandoned polite, organic discussion in favor of overemphasizing conservative voices and allowing “misinformation” and “divisive rhetoric.”
Many are frustrated with Musk’s chaotic management style, which they say prioritizes “free speech absolutism” over safety and inclusivity.
There is also exhaustion over algorithm-driven content on X, with users hoping Bluesky will offer more autonomy and less corporate or political influence.
They view Bluesky’s structured moderation as more like Twitter before Musk, saying it was less problematic.
Bluesky looks to appeal to those disillusioned with to state of discourse on X like LeBron James and Mark Cuban.
In case you’re wondering how bad things are at Bluesky, Mark Cuban is the center-right voice of reason. https://t.co/uSxy2uoiK1
Meanwhile on X, there is mostly criticism and mockery directed at Bluesky.
A New Echo Chamber
People say Bluesky fosters ideological silos, allowing the left to remain ignorant of views they disagree with, and which caused so many to be shocked by the election outcome.
Those on X also say Bluesky is too tightly moderated, viewing Twitter-of-old as a serious threat to free speech online.
There are also accusations that Bluesky is drawing much more objectionable content than X, like CSAM and MAPs advocacy.
Many on the right or avid X users take the opportunity to mock and make memes about Bluesky users, saying they’re thin-skinned and intolerant.
People joke about Bluesky’s attempt to enforce moderation to prevent the spread of “misinformation” and “hate speech.”
Some also suggest liberals who object to Elon Musk are jealous of X’s success and the threat it poses to legacy media, refusing to participate due to sour grapes.
People question Bluesky’s long-term viability, saying X has a significant market share and citing examples like Mark Zuckerberg’s “Threads,” which had lackluster impact.
Others simply join Bluesky themselves to troll and bait what they view as ideologues who take themselves too seriously.
There are also some on X reporting that they created a Bluesky account and were almost immediately perma-banned for things like saying men are men and women are women.
The January (J6) Capitol riot remains a very polarizing event in modern American history, and its fallout continues to color social media discussions. The events of the riot, legal consequences for participants, and proposed or granted pardons generate fractured discussion. This reveals disagreements about justice, accountability, and the role of political leadership.
WOW: Vivek understands the terrible truth about J6: it was clear entrapment.
This is a STUNNING indictment of the fraudulent DOJ witch hunt against J6 protesters.@VivekGRamaswamy, we must make it clear to President Trump: pardons FOR ALL J6ers is a CONSTITUTIONAL IMPERATIVE. pic.twitter.com/i6u362TRaY
Roughly 45% of discussion supports J6 participants, often framing them as victims of corruption or political persecution. They believe many who were prosecuted are political prisoners, unfairly punished compared to protestors from other movements like Black Lives Matter.
Conversely, 30% condemn J6 as a direct threat to democracy, emphasizing the seriousness of the assault on law enforcement and the Capitol.
Only 25% attempt to wage nuanced debates, acknowledging failures on both sides while questioning the fairness of legal and political responses.
Discussion is not just about the events of January 6 but reaches to divisions about the state of American democracy. Supporters of J6 participants often reference beliefs about election fraud as justification, while opponents focus on the moral implications of the riot.
Justice and Accountability
Discussions about justice and accountability are typically among those who oppose Trump and view J6 as a severe attack.
Approximately 70% of these critics advocate for strict consequences, viewing leniency as a betrayal of democratic values. Many highlight the brutality of the riot, claiming violence against law enforcement officers and damage to the Capitol.
Around 15% of critics argue for leniency, claiming J6 participants were exercising their constitutional rights to protest perceived election fraud. This group often draws comparisons to Black Lives Matter protests, with critics alleging hypocrisy and double standards in law enforcement and judicial processes.
The debate reveals frustrations with institutional hypocrisy as many question whether the legal system upholds justice impartially or prosecutions are politicized.
Word is going around that Trumps team won’t pardon the J6ers because of this poll that says the majority of people oppose it
Don’t know about y’all but we were never asked and the polls are always opposite of reality
Many on the right distrust media commentary about J6, with 60% expressing skepticism toward reporting. This group accuses legacy outlets of framing the events to serve partisan agendas, exaggerating their significance to foment outrage.
Voters discussing it say the media amplifies accusations around J6 to demonize Donald Trump and his supporters. This pervasive distrust toward media complicates a clear understanding or cohesive narrative, further entrenching divisions and reinforcing echo chambers.
Speculation and Conspiracy
There is a lot of speculation and conspiracy theories about J6 itself and the political fallout.
Those who believe J6 was manipulated for political gain speculate about corruption. They allege federal agents or political opponents infiltrated the protests to incite violence, framing J6 participants as insurrectionists. They view justice as unfairly applied, accusing figures like Nancy Pelosi and law enforcement agencies of facilitating or provoking the events.
J6 critics speculate about the political motivations of pardons and legal proceedings, suggesting these actions are strategic maneuvers to either protect Trump’s base or consolidate political power. This collective speculation on both sides emphasizes the uncertainty and distrust Americans have toward opposition and institutions.
Emotional Responses
55% of responses voice anger over perceived injustices or betrayal by political leaders.
25% is fear and anxiety, reflecting concerns about the future of democracy and the implications of legal and political decisions.
20% voice hope at a path to redemption for J6 participants through pardons or as a political opportunity for Donald Trump to regain momentum.
Recent reports suggest Comcast is preparing to sell MSNBC after increasingly dramatic ratings casualties post-election. Elon Musk, who has become infamous for purchasing Twitter in 2022, is making hay of the situation by joking about buying MSNBC.
People point out legacy media’s waning influence in America and the ratings bloodbath that has seen CNN and MSNBC viewership drop below that of the Hallmark channel, and reports of Rachel Maddow suffering a $5 million pay cut.
EMBARRASSING!😂@patrickbetdavid roasts CNN and MSNBC after report comes out that Hallmark beat them in viewership
"Imagine you wake up one day, and your producer comes to you, says guys Hallmark just beat us." pic.twitter.com/G3krDxjdBS
Some are also suggesting that, should Musk buy MSNBC, he could give Alex Jones a show after being forced to sell InfoWars to The Onion. As the media landscape shifts, Americans are grappling the implications for social and political commentary.
As MIG Reports has extensively covered, trust in legacy media is at all-time lows. Americans frequently describe outlets like MSNBC as biased and politicized purveyors of misinformation. They say elitists in the media are disconnected from the values and concerns of ordinary Americans.
This sentiment of distrust is compounded by fears of partisan agendas and corporate manipulation. People view legacy media institutions as gatekeepers of selective truths. Disillusioned with establishment narratives, Americans are increasingly flocking to places like X for more balanced coverage of current events.
The Search for New Icons
There is significant ideological disagreement in America around free speech, propaganda, and figures like Elon Musk. For some, Musk embodies the entrepreneurial spirit and resistance to censorship, while others view him as a dangerous consolidator of influence.
Similarly, people like Alex Jones serve as flashpoints for debates about freedom of speech and "misinformation,” revealing sharp ideological rifts. Thes popularity of these figures, while contentious, indicates a public desire for authenticity and accountability in an era of institutional fatigue.
Amid these conversations, speculative thinking looms large. From theories of government corruption to economic collapse, Americans feel anxious about the future. Terms like “money laundering schemes” and “elite collusion” speak to skepticism toward the understandings and predictions provided by legacy media about current events.
Voters are tired of being forced to accept the viewpoints and constructs ordained by media institutions. They increasingly prefer to build their own interpretations of past events and speculations for the future without being force-fed a certain perspective.
Emotion as a Driving Force
The emotional landscape of these discussions is striking. Anger dominates, particularly in critiques of political and media establishments perceived as prioritizing elite interests over public welfare.
Yet, frustration coexists with flickers of hope, as some commenters express optimism for reform through disruptive figures like Musk and grassroots movements like the rise of citizen journalism. Meanwhile, an undercurrent of fear among elites and the media causes many to speculate their influence in coming to an end.
Shaping Public Narratives
The U.S. is experiencing a period of cultural and political upheaval, fracturing traditional narratives and power centers. This gives rise to a more fragmented but exciting era of populist realignment. Many feel this moment will be viewed in retrospect as a turning point in American culture and politics.
Many view media and governance as either oppressive forces to be dismantled or institutions to reform. The interplay of despair at the current situation and hope for dramatic changes creates a complex tapestry of thought.
Online, there is significant discourse about the impact Elon Musk has had on free speech in America. There is a segment of the population that attributes changing cultural tides to Musk’s and Trump’s polarizing but undeniable influence and impact.
Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau drew criticism over the weekend with video of him dancing at a Taylor Swift concert while Canada faced violent and destructive pro-Palestine protests. The juxtaposition of leadership dancing while citizens face turmoil also sparks reactions among American observers who view it as a familiar image.
Terrorism on our streets and Trudeau doesn't care.
Pro-Hamas riots are taking place in Montreal, meanwhile Trudeau is at a Taylor Swift concert displaying his cringe dance moves. pic.twitter.com/0wpXUgRNFa
Many view Trudeau’s actions as inconsiderate and poor leadership, with comments like “while you were dancing, Montreal was burning.”
Some compare Trudeau to American leaders making similar blunders. A few mention figures like Ted Cruz who flew to Cancun during a historic ice storm in Texas or Tim Walz who let BLM riot in Minnesota after George Floyd’s death.
Voters in the U.S. and some in Canada want leaders who engage and lead with strength during moments of national distress.
30% Defend Trudeau
Supporters say leaders deserve personal moments, framing the backlash as a “right-wing tears” moment, which they find entertaining.
Some suggest Trudeau’s love for Taylor Swift humanizes him and boosts morale among his constituents.
15% Criticize the Protest
Some frame the protesters as extremists driven by radical anti-Isreal agendas.
While they focus less on Trudeau and more on pro-Palestine rioters, they mention the lack of a decisive government response.
Critics say Trudeau's actions are hypocritical and enable disruptive protests.
10% are Neutral
A minority prefers to focus on broader political grievances, dismissing talk of Trudeau’s behavior and redirecting to the unrest itself.
Performative Politics Leaves a Void
Critics say Trudeau neglecting the riots illustrates a larger trend of performative leadership, where public figures prioritize image over engagement or solutions. This frustration mirrors American critiques of leaders like Gavin Newsom who emphasize public relations optics while neglecting urgent governance.
Trudeau’s progressive governance using identity politics and “woke” policies further inflame criticism. For many Americans, these policies foster division and exacerbate societal unrest. Many claim that silence on issues like anti-Israel protests tacitly condones such sentiments—though Trudeau tweeted a condemnation the next day.
What we saw on the streets of Montreal last night was appalling. Acts of antisemitism, intimidation, and violence must be condemned wherever we see them.
The RCMP are in communication with local police. There must be consequences, and rioters held accountable.
Many see Trudeau’s actions as a validation of the cultural upheaval America is experiencing following Trump’s reelection. They say the results of weak political leadership, cultural coercion, and tyrannical government in Canada are the very outcomes Americans voted to reject by reelecting Trump.
There are also criticisms of Canadian law enforcement for arresting Rebel News CEO Ezra Lavant, a Jewish man who attempted to question pro-Palestine protesters. Some Americans say antisemitism is ingrained in progressive ideology and manifest in Canadian government.
CANADA HAS FALLEN
Watch and share how my boss Ezra Levant was arrested in Toronto today for being Jewish while practising journalism
Trudeau’s PR debacle draws the attention of U.S. voters grappling with their own discontent toward leaders. The frustrations Canadians face mirror similar ones in the U.S.
Economic Concerns: Inflation and economic instability continue to dominate both Canadian and American political discourse. Voters see leadership as disengaged from the realities of middle-class struggles.
Social Unrest: Rising protests, antisemitism, and cultural divisions reflect a shared narrative of dissatisfaction with progressive leadership.
U.S. Conservative Perspectives
For conservative or pro-Israel Americans, Trudeau’s actions are another example of “woke” leadership and elitist mindsets. They point out the chasm between political elites and everyday citizens, as leaders indulge in lavish lifestyles while their citizens face political upheaval and economic strain.
This sentiment strengthens a broader cultural critique of progressive and establishment governance. The populist resurgence in America has a very distinct anti-establishment and anti-elite flavor. This causes an extreme reaction of disgust and condemnation for leaders like Trudeau who seem to indulge in fading norms where elites are protected by their political power and legacy media coverups.
Americans are increasingly discussing assisted suicide, shaping a new public current around life and personal choice. There is a deeply personal and complex struggle to balance individual autonomy, ethical considerations, and healthcare shortcomings in online dialogue.
A big shock realization for me was when I discovered that Canada doesn't count assisted suicides in their suicide rate. When those are counted, their suicide rate is several times higher than ours.
Kind of a perverse incentive at play when the government that pays for your… https://t.co/TOCsRj3tEy
More than 60% of the discussion includes personal experiences with terminal illness, placing emotional weight on debates.
Personal stories humanize the issue, making it relatable and fostering empathy across ideological divides.
Speculative Concerns
Around 40% views assisted suicide as a compassionate option for those enduring unbearable pain.
35% express moral or religious objections, often invoking fears of societal moral erosion or abuse.
25% take a moderate stance, expressing uncertainty and seeking better understanding.
Cultural and Religious Influences
Religious beliefs shape significant opposition, referencing “God’s plan” or the sanctity of life.
Some compare this topic with other divisive issues like abortion, saying society has lost sight of moral imperatives which history will not look kindly on.
Cultural factors also deepen the divide, reflecting varying societal attitudes towards life, death, and autonomy.
“I have a passion to live, I don’t want to give up my life”
Roger Foley, a Canadian man with a severe disability, fights for the support he needs to live independently.
Many Americans are frustrated with palliative care and healthcare in general, framing increasing desires for assisted suicide as symptomatic of system failures.
Many argue robust support systems and better mental health interventions could reduce the perceived need for life-ending measures.
Balancing Autonomy and Ethics
Proponents of assisted suicide say there is dignity and personal choice in the decision, emphasizing the right to control one’s fate.
Opponents question the ethical implications and express concern over coercion or devaluation of life.
Public Influence and Policy Considerations
Approximately 70% of comments reference public figures or legislative actions, commenting on social attitudes and government involvement in encouraging or discouraging these drastic actions.
Discussions about regulations parse tensions between individual freedom and safeguarding against abuse and devaluing life.
Haven’t seen much attention on this, but West Virginia closely passed this cycle a constitutional amendment prohibiting assisted suicide. 🎉 pic.twitter.com/4ch9YGklte
The American public’s engagement with global security issues reveals fear, disagreement, and skepticism. Conversations about the potential for World War III, Russia’s aggression, and Ukraine’s role in the conflict place international tensions at critical levels.
Americans are becoming more anxious about escalating geopolitical tensions, particularly with Russia and Ukraine. Many discuss these possibilities with speculative language, saying things like, “the two most dangerous months,” referring to the period between the end of Joe Biden’s term and Trump’s inauguration. These fears contain a sense of impending disaster.
Amid growing apprehension, some call for unity and proactive measures against war. Americans want peace and some discuss collective actions like prayer. Nevertheless, frustration and fear are dominant, highlighting a public increasingly disillusioned with government accountability and competence.
Russia’s Geopolitical Shadow
Those talking about Russia express alarm over escalating tensions with NATO and concerns about potential nuclear escalation. Public sentiment is divided on the West’s role in the conflict.
While supporters of Ukraine view military aid as a necessary stand against Russian aggression, critics frame NATO’s involvement as provocations that exacerbate the crisis. Russia’s military actions, such as its Oreshnik missile, and Ukraine’s retaliatory strikes with U.S.-supplied weaponry, are perceived as drawing larger conflict.
President Biden faces significant scrutiny in these discussions. Critics say his approach prolongs the war, with hope often tied to Trump’s incoming administration. Many believe Trump will be more effective at peace negotiations with Putin, rather than Biden who still receives sharp critique for his oversight of the Afghanistan withdrawal.
Broader geopolitical concerns, including Russia’s ties with China and Israel, further complicate public opinion. Some want assertive measures against Russian aggression, though this is often tempered by fears of diplomatic failure.
Ukraine’s Struggle for Sovereignty
Public conversations on Ukraine contain sympathy, frustration, and moral debate. While many support Ukraine’s sovereignty and resilience against Russian aggression, there is growing discontent with U.S. financial aid.
Critics say domestic economic challenges should take priority. They frame Ukraine aid as emblematic of an “America Last” policy. This sentiment is countered by pro-Ukraine advocates who emphasize the global security implications of opposing Russia.
Discussions also focus on military dynamics, including NATO’s perceived role in Ukrainian strikes on Russian territory. These narratives blur the line between bilateral conflict and broader alliance involvement, raising concerns about accountability and escalation.
A Fractured Public Consensus
Overall, Americans are fearful and distrust leadership to maintain peace. Emotional language overshadows moments of hope, reflecting a public grappling with the complexities of potential war. Geopolitical concerns versus internal political divides complicate a cohesive response to global unrest.
Americans feel the country is navigating a fragile balance between advocacy and skepticism, urgency and despair. As global tensions continue to escalate, these conversations offer a snapshot of a society seeking clarity and stability in a world marked by uncertainty.
The U.S. Department of Justice is pursuing an antitrust case against Google over its monopolistic presence in online search and advertising. This question of regulating major corporations generates heated public debate, with Americans expressing varied opinions on corporate power, government regulation, and market fairness.
Many view Google as a symbol of unchecked monopolistic power, accusing the tech giant of suppressing competition and consumer choice. This distrust stems from views of large corporations as exploitative, consolidating wealth and influence. For critics, the DOJ’s intervention is a necessary step toward accountability and leveling the playing field.
If you want to see the worst people in the world, read the comments on this article about Google shredding documents when under antitrust investigation.
Skepticism about the government's ability to challenge Google effectively tempers public optimism. Many question whether the DOJ's efforts are genuine or politically motivated, voicing distrust of government intentions.
Some conservatives frame the case as overreach, claiming regulatory efforts might harm innovation and consumer benefits. Progressives are more likely to approve of the case as a critical stand against corporate greed. This ideological divide is not universal, however, as some conservatives concede the government has a role in preventing anticompetitive corporate behavior.
Lost in the Sauce
Most conversations question the nuances and complexities around antitrust regulation in the tech industry. Many Americans express confusion about what constitutes a monopoly in the modern digital landscape, acknowledging the challenge of balancing regulation with free market innovation.
Speculative discussions bring up potential unintended consequences, such as stifled technological advancement or restricted consumer choice. For some, the fear is not just about Google's dominance but about the potential for overly aggressive regulation to halt innovation.
Public sentiment includes hope, frustration, and skepticism. While many applaud the DOJ’s actions as long-overdue, others remain unconvinced. They are wary of Google’s influence and the government’s own corrupt practices which prevent meaningful change.
Democratic responses to Allan Lichtman’s "13 Keys" election predictions and their failure to capture public sentiment accurately. In the aftermath of Trump’s decisive victory, Democrats continue to grapple with their understanding of the loss. Meanwhile, broader political developments expose a charged environment of frustration, speculation, and party tension.
While Lichtman’s forecasts remain a focal point, discussions touch on immigration, national safety, and leadership accountability, showing a party at odds with itself and its strategy.
I am not joking when I say this is one of the greatest clips I've ever seen on a cable news show.
Cenk completely destroys Alan Lichtman by pointing out that his keys to the White House were wrong and Lichtman responds by accusing him of blasphemy.😂pic.twitter.com/4G1YF3cxTy
Trust in party leadership and political analysis like Lichtman’s "13 Keys" is waning, reflecting broader doubts about the Democratic Party’s understanding of public sentiment.
Many commenters say the party's messaging does not resonate with Americans. They complain about woke ideologies and a lack of relatable figures in leadership.
Voters worry about inflation, wages, and the overall economy. This, along with safety concerns, worsens critiques of Democratic governance and priorities.
Despite frustration, some Democrats call for unity and constructive dialogue. They promote collective progress instead of finger pointing and blame.
Discussion Themes
Democrats are desperately searching for the cause of their catastrophic loss, trying to pinpoint explanations. Many were shocked by the inaccuracy of predictions like Lichtman’s or polls like Ann Selzer’s, creating confusion about which issues turned the tide.
Outrage and Accountability
Democratic frustration touches on the failures of leadership, pollsters, and analysis. Leadership figures like Secretary Mayorkas and Director Wray are criticized for actions voters feel are evasive or insufficient.
Statements such as "Mayorkas and Wray’s refusal to testify is an outrage" illustrate a sense of betrayal and neglect of responsibility. These sentiments echo broader calls for resignations and reforms within party leadership.
Safety and Immigration Concerns
Safety issues, particularly those tied to immigration, feature prominently in postmortem discussions. Tragedies involving fentanyl and violent crimes committed by illegal immigrants dominate narratives.
Comments like "Every day, 350 Americans die from cartel-imported fentanyl" link these crises to perceived Democratic policy failures, reflecting a growing anxiety about national security.
Speculation and Distrust in Leadership
Speculative language creates a tone of distrust toward Democratic leadership. Comments like, "Biden clearly does not want this war to end" convey dissatisfaction with foreign policy decisions and perceived ulterior motives. This speculation extends to domestic governance, with many calling for transparency and prioritizing voters’ concerns.
Democratic Friction and Calls for Reform
Party divisions are growing, with abundant critiques of Democratic leadership and party strategy. Terms like "profound failure" highlight dissatisfaction with the party’s current trajectory. Voters want "self-reflection" and appeals to "good people" in leadership positions point to a desire for transformative change.
Voters voice confusion and frustration with leadership. However, the media and the political class still seem unwilling or unable to accurately assess the strategic failures which led to Harris’s historic loss.
Watching Allen Lichtman completely unravel as he realizes Kamala is going to lose Pennsylvania is priceless comedy. 🤣 pic.twitter.com/KdsCk0mpG7
Reactions of the reversal of Jussie Smollett's conviction are divided around miscarried justice, race, and accountability. The Illinois Supreme Court overturned Smollett’s conviction on five counts of felony disorderly conduct filing false police reports. The case was over a 2019 hoax hate crime Smollett committed in which he staged an attack by alleged MAGA supporters who he claimed beat him up and put a noose around his neck. It was later revealed that he fabricated the whole thing and paid two men to stage the imaginary beatdown. After being convicted for his hoax, the reversal was due to legal technicalities involving his original prosecution.
The court found issues with procedural fairness and conflicts of interest, particularly regarding the involvement of the special prosecutor. This raises questions about the Illinois justice system and potential corruption in Smollett’s favor.
Did Obama improperly intervene to convince the Illinois Supreme Court to overturn the convictions against Jussie Smollett? A fair question especially since Michelle Obama was previously successful in getting Kim Foxx to drop those same charges. Equal protection under the law does…
Empathy for Smollett and marginalized individuals: 35%
Outrage at perceived injustice and institutional failure: 30%
Political framing and opposition to Republican exploitation: 25%
Calls for accountability and systemic change: 10%
General Audience
Outrage at Smollett and the justice system: 65%
Empathy for Smollett: 20%
Mixed or neutral reactions: 15%
Democratic Perspectives
Among Democrats, 35% express empathy for Smollett, framing him as symbolic of struggles against systemic racism and injustice. This narrative often ties his case to identity politics, including his race and LGBTQ+ status. Many commenters view Smollett as representing marginalized communities being mistreated by a flawed justice system. Some even suggest the overturned conviction exonerates Smollett.
General Audience
Only 20% of the overall commentary about Smollett expresses empathy. While some accept Smollett as a victim of systemic pressures, the majority sentiment criticizes him for perpetrating a hoax hate crime and perpetuating damaging racial stereotypes. Overall, Americans are more skeptical and critical, saying Smollett escaped justice on a technicality.
Jussie Smollett's hate crime hoax conviction was overturned by the Illinois Supreme Court...
So apparently it's ok to lie about being attacked by Trump supporters and waste thousands of dollars of police time in Chicago.
Democrats frame the case as a political maneuver, with 25% criticizing Republicans for exploiting Smollett’s situation to stoke racial and social divisions. They voice overall distrust of conservative motives in discussions around justice and equity.
More general discussion is less focused on political framing and more evenly split along partisan lines. Criticism of the justice system centers on failures of accountability rather than perceived political exploitation. Many suspect corrupt motives among those involved, leading to a failure of justice.
Outrage and Accountability
Around 30% of Democrats express outrage over systemic failures rather than Smollett himself. They want reform and to address structural inequities in the justice system, positioning Smollett’s case as a symptom of larger systemic issues.
Outside of Democratic circles, outrage dominates reactions. 65% of comments criticize Smollett for undermining public trust. They portray him as typical of progressive elites with a victimhood complex. They also blame cases like Smollett’s for a perceived decline in law enforcement integrity and accountability.
Race and Justice
Race is a central theme for Democrats, with discussions frequently critiquing systemic racism in the justice system. Smollett’s case is framed as part of a historical pattern of inequities, underscoring the need for systemic change. This narrative connects Smollett’s reversal to larger movements advocating for racial and social justice.
While race also features prominently in the general discourse, the narrative is critical of Smollett. Many commenters argue his actions harm genuine efforts to address racial injustice, framing his case as counterproductive to progress.
Media Criticism
Democrats are less critical of the media’s role in amplifying Smollett’s hoax and painting him as sympathetic. This group focuses on race and injustice over how the case is portrayed in mainstream media.
The general audience criticizes media sensationalism, suggesting coverage of Smollett’s hoax exacerbates division and advances partisan agendas. This distrust reflects broader concerns about the role of the media in influencing public discourse.
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
_.png)
_.png)
_.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)