Bluesky+, Fox News’ Future and Matt Gaetz’ New Gig

Yesterday I was arguing with a few friends on Slack about the Bluesky discourse. A film critic recommended film writers considering the setting Evil There were no “serious people” in their top ten, which got under my skin more than it probably should have. But yeah: make fun of it film – that’s the job. But don’t demean or trivialize it People whoever likes it. And then move on. This is just textbook bullying and also film critic 101.

I don’t care about the movie I liked, but disliking someone because of their opinion of the movie? Light up. And these people with thousands of followers aren’t saying, “Oh, that sucks, I offended someone.” They’re saying, “I’m just going to giggle and make a block list of all the people I pissed off,” because it is more important for them to build a bond with other film writers than to respect their audience. It made me angry and reminded me of old movie Twitter, but not in a good way. I had checked out of this scene for most of 2014-15 – I got caught up in arguments far too easily – and thought that the rapid changes in the industry and the many layoffs might have humiliated the film’s writers. I was wrong.

Am I making a big deal out of nothing? Yes. No. Probably! But I just don’t understand how this kind of gatekeeping benefits anyone. And if you only surround yourself with people who love, let’s say, The brutalistYou limit yourself. Whatever. It’s cool. I unfollowed some people.

I still enjoy Bluesky, especially for following the authors I love (who aren’t complacent), political figures, the writers here, and our readers. Except this one. You know who you are. Will I pay $8 for a Bluesky+ subscription when it arrives? Honest? Probably. I objected to this on Twitter because the money went to Elon Musk and his damn algorithm. But I pay for verification and post analysis – just not if Bluesky decides to display my feed algorithmically. TechCrunch got their hands on this “user interface mockup” that doesn’t necessarily represent the actual features, and Bluesky doesn’t know when they’ll roll it out either. But it looks about right and I would pay to support the place.

Elsewhere in court yesterday, Rupert Murdoch’s attempt to undo the trust he had built for his children failed. That means Lachlan Murdoch – who currently controls Fox News – may not necessarily do so following Rupert’s death. James Murdoch and the two sisters, Elisabeth and Prudence, do not represent the same politics, and after Rupert’s death they could collectively vote to oust Lachlan and steer the network in a more evidence-based direction. Or they won’t. Rupert Murdoch wants to appeal. Interestingly, the trust’s existence was inspired by an episode of Consequencewhich itself was inspired by the Murdochs. The judge even referenced the HBO drama. In any case, the future of the network remains unclear, even if nothing will change until the death of 93-year-old Rupert.

Speaking of Fox News, while the company is still controlled by Lachlan, they are pursuing acquisitions that could include Ben Shapiro, according to Semafor The Daily Wire or Red Seat Ventures, producers of podcasts for Megyn Kelly and Tucker Carlson. That makes perfect sense, but interestingly, Fox News may not be able to afford these acquisitions – especially if Elon Musk decides to expand his conservative media empire and acquire these assets himself.

Finally, Matt Gaetz — who resigned from Congress to pursue a failed attempt to become Trump’s AG — has found a new home: He’s hired by the far-right media company OAN. The Matt Gaetz Show will start in January.