 I don't believe there are two sides to every story. I believe there are infinite sides to every story, and that's why it's important to look at infinite sides to every story. Of course, as I always try my best to do, I will avoid using ad hominem attacks, avoid speculation, and stick to the arguments at hand. I will not be lumped into a jar labeled hater because I have opinions. I don't ever want people to think I'm difficult to work with or that I'm a bitch. I've worked with people who have been difficult, but have been male. And there's never a complaint made about them, or there's never an issue made about them. And then I have friends who are actresses who, if they go to work one day and they show up on set and they don't have a smile on their face, then they're tagged a bitch, and that is really unfortunate. But there's nothing. I can't single-handedly change that process. I'm trying. I didn't really want to talk about this anymore, but I feel like it kind of needs to be discussed before moving on to what this video is. I personally am not probably going to be addressing any sort of drama type of situations anymore from this point moving forward. For a really long time, I wanted to believe that anti-MLM and the anti-MLM quote-unquote community had just been derailed by one particular individual and that we could bring everything back on track if we just addressed where this individual may have went wrong and the people that felt scammed by this individual had closure and then moved on. But it's very clear that quote-unquote drama is not going to go away from anti-MLM anytime soon. For a while, I thought I needed to speak on those things publicly and defend myself, but I'm realizing that also causes more problems than even any good sometimes. And then everything's labeled as drama or the entire community is labeled as problematic. So at this point, I have decided to just not speak on situations that could be perceived as drama and focus on the bigger picture of things. And I hope that everyone can see where I'm coming from with that. This will also be my last video, speaking on anti-MLM for the time being, just because I really want to make this channel about all unethical business practices that are going on in the world. And a huge thing I wanna do on my channel is I wanna start doing series, like deep dives, multiple part type of series. And the first one that's coming out is going to be on conspiracy theories. I'm currently working on that and I'm really excited for that. So I hope you guys enjoy that content too. As far as my view on anti-MLM, because I've never really talked about my view on anti-MLM and the movement as a whole, a lot of people reference it as an anti-MLM community. And some people say the anti-MLM movement and I kind of go back and forth between the two. That being said, I am personally more inclined to see anti-MLM as a movement. I think that because anti-MLM has been labeled as a community, it has caused a lot of people to see everyone in anti-MLM as having the same outlook. Or like if one person makes content about this topic, that means everyone in the anti-MLM community is involved in that topic. But in my opinion, anti-MLM is more of a movement. It's a subject matter in which a lot of people feel similarly. They feel that MLMs exhibit predatory business practices and wanna speak on that. But not everyone agrees in the approach to do their content, the topics to talk about, and the ways in which they speak on something. And the other reason why I feel like anti-MLM is more a movement than a community is anti-MLM is on so many different platforms and exists in so many different ways. There's incredible books that I see as part of the anti-MLM movement, like Ponzi Nomics, a newer book that just came out. You have a book coming out and it's called Ponzi Nomics for those of you who don't know. First, maybe I should say, thank you for coming on the show. And then let's get into this. You're very welcome. Ponzi Nomics, yeah, first of all, a made up term combining the term Ponzi, which is a form of fraud, robbing Peter to pay Paul with economics. The idea here is to combine the two because in what we've got today is a belief system. The belief system is a pseudo economics portrayed in terms of sales, marketing, business language, multi-level marketing, which we'll get into itself is a pseudo economic term. There's the Reddit where a collective of hundreds of thousands of individuals have come together and truly made a dent in the perception of MLMs and spread awareness on the dangers of them. There's Facebook groups, there's Instagram pages, and of course there's YouTubers, but everyone has a different approach, a different outlook to content, a different outlook on how to speak out against MLMs, and nothing is truly the same. Anti-MLM is way more than one or two or three people, I don't know, causing some sort of drama or commotion. And it's even more than the YouTubers who choose to speak on those drama quote unquote topics. I didn't know that this was a controversial opinion, but I feel that anyone who has ever spoken out against the dangers of MLMs is contributing to the anti-MLM movement. And people have a right to choose the consistency in which they talk about MLMs and the anti-MLM movement and the manner in which they do so. I think Amanda MC, who's a creator on YouTube who makes anti-MLM content, phrased it really, really well when she talked about her outlook on the community and movement. I am passionate about the anti-MLM community. I see where the community is going in the future. It's gonna be some amazing things from within the community, for the community. And because I am part of the anti-MLM community, I do not want to see it being tarnished and further, I guess derailed all of our efforts and a group of people or an entire community being dissed or lumped as toxic or haters or cancelers because there was a few bad players in the community. A community is complex and made up of a bunch of individuals who have different capabilities, backgrounds, knowledge, experiences and contributions and more. Anti-MLM has become a social movement. It has become a subculture on the internet that some people participate in more than others. The level at which anyone chooses to be involved is their own choice. And my hope for anti-MLM as a whole is that we start seeing some incredible nonprofits come out advocating for awareness of the dangers of MLMs as well as helping those who have been victims of MLMs. I hope that moving forward, we learn how to handle drama within the community because I do think that the initial drama that has happened within anti-MLM was the first experience of drama, quote unquote, within the movement or dealing with bad actors within the movement. But reality is bad actors are going to exist. The more and more a movement grows. And my hope for the movement is that moving forward, when someone exhibits bad behavior, we call it out and then very, very quickly move on. My true goal with sharing anti-MLM content has been to help people, to help people stay away from scams, to help people not go through a horrible experience or to acknowledge that what happened to them wasn't okay. Hi. So I wanted to put that general statement out there. I did feel like it was needed to mention that and clarify my particular stances. As the anti-MLM movement has grown larger and larger, more and more articles have come out covering the dangers of MLMs and the anti-MLM movement. And most of these articles I love, they're in depth, they cover the facts, the statistics, and they go into the most important talking points of anti-MLM. What most anti-MLMers want to get across to the general public. I never thought I would see an anti-MLM opinion piece until, well, this week, I guess. If you've been around my channel for a while, you know that I cover a variety of different topics. I don't just talk about anti-MLM, but also unethical business practices and scams as a whole. But anti-MLM is a movement I care a lot about and a lot of people in my Discord know this. So they're always posting new updates and interesting and important information, such as this recent article. So this article was posted in my Discord, how the pandemic stoked a backlash to multi-level marketing featured in technology and written by Caitlin Tiffany, posted January 27th of 2021. So when this article was first posted in the Discord, I didn't have time to read over it, but I was like, great, another article covering anti-MLM from what it had appeared to be. It seemed like the majority of the article was talking about MLMs and how the pandemic has kind of fueled backlash against MLMs as their tactics get shadier and shadier. So that's what I was kind of expecting. Going into the article and I was like, great, that's really an important topic to talk about. That's amazing. I'll read it later when I have the time and I'm able to. Funny enough, when I first saw this posted in the Discord, I did see the photo and I thought I saw my face as I was scrolling by. And then I was like, that's very self-absorbed of me to think I saw my face on this article. Like, wow, I need to check myself. I was like, that's funny that I thought that this random face was mine, ha ha. And then I just kind of moved on with my day. Then I did a little bit of work and returned back to the Discord and was able to actually read the article. And the first thing I noticed is, yeah, that actually was my face on the article, but it's not the only time my face appears on this article that I had no idea about that was getting posted. So I'm gonna break down the cover photo for this article because it is really weird to me just for a lot of reasons. Like, let me know if this is really weird to you guys because I was just looking at, I'm just like, why? So the first face that I noticed that was mine was a face taken from one of my thumbnails. I'm pretty sure this is a thumbnail where I was talking about the Monat hand sanitizer charity and how, in my opinion, I thought it was all kind of a ploy just to sell more product on their end. The fake AF kind of ear that's cut off at the end of the photo is also from my thumbnail. Here's where it gets weirder. The photo in the orange square is also from my thumbnail. When I was talking about people that were kind of exploiting the pandemic and while I did mention MLMs in that video, the photo that they chose was a photo of Kenneth Copeland who's a televangelist. He's not in an MLM and he doesn't really have anything to do with MLMs and the anti MLM movement. No, I do not. And don't you ever say I did. So that was definitely an interesting choice but also from my thumbnail. And then the weirdest one to me, absolutely weirdest one, is the photo of me in the red square where I'm kind of, I look like I'm hunched over or crouching over. And that was a modeling photo that I took when I was 16 years old that they used in this. What does that have to do with anti MLM in any way? A modeling photo of me when I was 16 years old and a photo of Kenneth Copeland. What? Like why? And then of course there's a photo of the lovely Kiki Chanel too. So it's like four photos from my thumbnails that have nothing to do with MLM and anti MLM, a reaction photo from Kiki Chanel and neither of us are quoted for the article. It's just so random. Like what is this? I wanna clarify, it's fine if someone uses my face in a video thumbnail, in an article, it's whatever. I just thought the use of my face in this article, the specific images chosen were just random and weird. It didn't make much sense to me. And I felt like it'd be weird to talk about the article without mentioning the fact that my face is all over it. I had just stumbled upon this article, it was posted in my Discord and I'm looking at the photos and I'm like, wait a minute, these are a lot of random photos from my thumbnails. One of me modeling when I was 16 years old, a minor, why is this like the photo cover used to represent MLMs and the anti MLM movement? What is going on here? That was basically my first thought when I saw this photo is like, what is going on here? So then I actually went into reading the whole article and I'll include the article in the description down below because I'm probably not gonna read the whole thing. I'm sure that would be really boring, but I'm gonna read some of the most interesting parts of the article. Some parts that really stood out to me. And I want to point out that this video will probably be me critiquing this article in a lot of different ways. And a lot of it is just my opinion. At the end of the day, everyone has a right to report on a story, to share their side, to share their opinion on something as I'm doing right now in this video. So I am going to kind of provide my insight because as you guys will find out, when I provided my insight to this reporter, it was not welcomed, as well as some kind of fatal flaws in the article, some logical fallacies, some things that are, in my opinion, just giant holes in the narrative that the article's trying to push. And yeah, I gotta talk about that. But obviously don't send this reporter any hate. For me, it's just like, if you're gonna put my face all over an article, I'm going to openly critique that article if I don't agree with it because my face is all over it. So yeah. Before I get into this article and describing what was in this article, I want to mention in this video, I'm not going to be mentioning the anti-MLM creators who were quoted for this article because there is going to be a part two in which I'm interviewing both Josie Nycoy or not the good girl here on YouTube, as well as Heather Rainbow, who's an anti-MLM creator on TikTok. So stay tuned for part two, where you get to hear from the creators themselves who were quoted for this article. I also want to mention, before speaking on this article, something that has been grinding my gears about kind of everyone who's been criticizing the anti-MLM community or movement is that the anti-MLM community is made up of all women. It grinds my gears because it's just not true. Anti-MLM is not just women. There are amazing creators who are men who've been speaking on the topic of MLMs, Ponzi schemes, pyramid schemes, all of that. One great creator is Coffeezilla. Here on YouTube, there's also Mac, who's a newer anti-MLM creator who I think is doing an incredible job. There are MLMs who target every single vulnerable demographic in existence. The MLM industry is diverse and complex. And my hope is that the anti-MLM movement and community can be seen as just as diverse and complex when speaking out against the dangers of MLMs. An incredible anti-MLM activist and someone who's inspired me so, so much with their approach to anti-MLM activism is Hailey or at counselor Hailey on Instagram. Hailey is non-binary, so I wanted to ask them about their input on the complexity and diversity of anti-MLM as well as the MLM industry. This is what Hailey has to say. I think anti-MLM is important for people of all genders and sexual orientations because although the MLM complex is seen as being composed of a lot of cis straight white people, anyone can get caught up in an MLM. I've heard stories of gay couples nearly divorcing because of MLMs. I know bi people who've been in MLMs. Plenty of trans folks across the gender spectrum participate in MLMs. The whole rainbow family is present and accounted for in these groups. Yes, it's true that MLMs are often rooted in traditional values in religion, which may be more palatable to straight cis people who generally fit a little neater into the status quo, but that doesn't mean that MLMers will necessarily refuse an LGBTQ plus person. Money is money to these organizations and I'm willing to bet that we'll be seeing plenty of pride themed MLM ads this June. So in terms of why the anti-MLM movement is important for LGBTQ plus people, it's because many of us have been there. And if we haven't been there, we easily could have been regardless of our background. The anti-MLM community is full of people from the queer community who are excited to help their queer siblings with open arms. And if someone is LGBTQ plus and didn't know that, I hope they can learn that after watching your video. I hope so too and thank you so much for Haley for providing such a well worded explanation of why anti-MLM is for everyone. And I wanna put that out there before talking about this because I mentioned women and internalized misogyny a lot, but that's only for the fact that many people who are critical of anti-MLM bring that up as if we're all just cis white women here talking about this and that is not the case. I'll also be linking in the description of this video a very diverse group of anti-MLM creators with diverse voices and input in the anti-MLM conversation because I think that's so, so important in understanding what anti-MLM is. So the article starts off by saying, for decades, multi-level marketing companies had it easy. Cutco knives, tupperware containers, and pampered chef bread mixes were inoffensive products sold at weeknight wine parties and later in themed Facebook groups. Inoffensive products is really an interesting way of phrasing it because any sort of inoffensive product can become very dangerous if the business structure surrounding that product is predatory. For the most part, they were an unremarkable part of women's lives. Except for women were going into debt, losing thousands and thousands, and because they were being recruited by friends and acquaintances felt pressure into purchasing these items. Is that unremarkable and inoffensive? Is it really interesting? And like I said, this is just my opinion on how I feel this article was just so weirdly worded. Anti-MLM is still diffuse and disorganized, but its rise poses an existential threat to multi-level marketing companies that rely on the constant recruitment of new participants. And its newfound popularity is already presenting challenges for the community, which critiques capitalism on commercial platforms. If criticizing multi-level marketing is a good way to get views and followers and personal attention, how long will it be before that becomes the reason to criticize multi-level marketing? So here's the weirdest thing, the assumption that was made with literally no evidence in this is that criticizing multi-level marketing is a good way to get views and followers and personal attention. The whole beginning of that sentence is stated as if it's a fact, yet what is she drawing that fact off of? What is this reporter drawing that fact off of? And don't get me wrong, there are people who have gathered a large following off of talking about multi-level marketing and criticizing it, but to say that that is the only reason why they have gathered a following is incorrect in so many ways. If I just sat here and said, Monet is bad, you shouldn't join any MLM company, don't go to cut co-parties, multi-level marketing sucks, would anyone follow me? On the Reddit forum, r slash anti MLM, members mock the industry all day long, referring to distributors as hunbot who lead off every conversation with a faux warm hey hun. Members mock the industry all day long. First off is not the full picture. But if you go onto the anti MLM subreddit, you will also find a ton of support and that subreddit has strict moderators who make sure that content doesn't take it too far on that platform. Not only that, but there are only evidence for the fact that members mock the industry all day long is that people call MLM distributors on the subreddit hunbots. With my content, I like to show something or show multiple things and then come to a conclusion and it just feels like that's not happening here. It's just like, this is what happens and take my word for it. Trust me, bro. Self promotion of any kind is entirely forbidden as is commentary on the quality of MLM products, good or bad. Shaming victims is out of bounds and no one is painted as a dupe. If the post does not highlight a core problem that MLM business model, it does not belong here, the rules warn. So how is that mocking the industry all day long? You literally just described the Reddit R slash anti MLM as mocking the industry all day long and then went into describing how they try and prevent that from happening. What is going on here? Like this makes no sense to me. I'm like, what is this article? While the Reddit anti MLM community is rigidly anti commercial, the other platforms where hashtag anti MLM is spreading were built to inspire self promotions and sales. YouTubers, many of whom have pivoted from other types of content and see greater success with anti MLM content also tend to offer lines of hoodies and T-shirts with anti MLM slogan and bright bubble letters. The funniest thing is I looked at whose page they linked because bright bubble letters sounded familiar for some reason. I don't know why bright bubble letters sounded familiar. I don't know who does that. Don't know her. So I looked and it was really interesting what page they linked for that. I mean, I don't want to get too overly defensive but it's just funny because I started anti MLM content in January of 2020. I didn't start selling merch until like, was it, it was September or October, I want to say because I had just moved to Colorado. We had took a month or two to settle in and then I was like, you know what? I should connect a Teespring account. It's not something that I make a lot of money off of at all and it's not something that I really care about in terms of making money. It was just a fun creative project and something people were asking for. It's just so funny to me because so much of this could be so easily worded to the Atlantic as well. The biggest irony out of all of this is just the, the Atlantic is just the Atlantic just because all of it parallels all the supposed criticisms about anti MLM content on YouTube. The Atlantic all over all of their articles puts a ton of ads, they do. That's fine. That's a good way to monetize a platform on top of that through continually looking back at this article. I received a notification by the Atlantic that I ran out of my monthly article limit and that if I wanted to continue reading stories on the Atlantic I had to become a subscriber. And what are the costs for subscribing? It's $49.99 for one year. For unlimited access to the Atlantic.com subscriber only newsletter, iOS app, digital issues and more. The best value, the print and digital for $59.99 for one year, which is the digital subscription plus 10 print issues of the magazine delivered to your door. And then the premium $100 for one year, which gives you the print and digital subscription plus ad free browsing and podcasts, free digital gift subscription and discounts on Atlantic products and priority access to events. So the Atlantic also sells products? Hmm, what does that sound like? YouTuber merch, right? I don't know. The irony in this whole thing is really funny. All of your articles are built to inspire self promotion because at the end there's an option to donate or on the site there's an option to donate. Reporters are making a career off of advocacy and talking about problems in the world just like the anti-MLM movement. So it's like what is the difference here? The incentive structures of YouTube which at the moment seem to be rewarding anti-MLM content have complicated the community's self perception. Videos that go viral often have dramatic clickbait titles about shocking horror stories and cultie overheard phone calls. These clips make money from ads. So you're telling me in your articles and you're reporting, you don't do any sort of clickbaiting whatsoever. Your title is about how the pandemic stoked a backlash to MLMs, but you're talking about YouTube and ad revenue that kind of seems like a clickbaity title to me because that's not really what the article is about, is it? So you're telling me you never use clickbait yourself. I didn't realize that this reporter is just so above YouTubers, just very much so above us, obviously. An amazing creator I have to shout out is the anti-bot who is literally the opposite of clickbait who never clickbaits anything who provides literally just the facts. Of course, as I always try my best to do, I will avoid using ad hominem attacks, avoid speculation and stick to the arguments at hand. Anti-MLM is not story times only. It's not just horror stories. There is regular talk of drama and infighting among these YouTubers and reaction video after reaction video whenever spats play out in public. I do wanna say at first when I read this article, I personally did not feel like the anti-MLM community as a whole makes content and reaction videos whenever quote unquote drama and spats play out in public. I thought that was kind of an offensive wording, especially because from my perspective, I only had an issue with one single former anti-MLM creator and it's for the unethical ways in which they went about trying to scam and exploit, in my opinion, people within anti-MLM and also within MLMs. That being said, I do think my opinion has slightly changed on this where I can see where the reporter is coming from. Reality is there has been a lot of drama that has been escalated or snowballed into a bigger thing because of a lot of reaction videos and content made commenting on what can be perceived as drama situations. It sucks because I don't want that to be the image of all anti-MLM content or to distract from the message, but I'm also not here to say who can make content on what who can talk about what that would be very hypocritical coming from me. And it does frustrate me when I feel like all creators are kind of roped in as being this way, when it's very clear that different creators are different, we all do different content, we all have different takes, it's not that hard to understand that in my opinion. That's led to a broader conflict and meta arguments about whether profit is appropriate. From who? I have not seen one person who's like, yeah, a YouTuber who spends literally a full-time job at this point with what I do, it is a full-time job, editing videos, filming, putting together, researching, finding content. I have not seen one person say you should not be compensated for that work. I have not seen one person. So the only thing she links as a way of showing that there's this conversation going on about whether or not YouTubers should be compensated for their work is she links to one Reddit post that has 10 upvotes where the entire conversation of YouTubers being able to profit off of work, editing, and all of that is never discussed. The only thing that's discussed is something that I do agree with, which is them basically to sum up trying to talk about how anti-MLM is not just YouTubers, which this very article seems to forget and only mentions very briefly before moving on to talking about YouTubers. In this supposed anti-MLM article. To take just that one Reddit post, which never discussed whether or not YouTubers should get paid and basically say your work, you should not be compensated for that because you're advocating for an issue. First off, your entire career as a reporter is talking about issues and that is your career. To insinuate that YouTubers should not be able to create a career off of talking about important issues, creating content off of that, filming, editing and putting it together. And of course, I am personally involved in this so I'm going to have a bias. But for me, I think about all the other creators here who genuinely put in a lot of effort into their work, create quality, quality content, spend hours and hours researching. And because it's not in traditional media and it's on YouTube, you shouldn't be profiting from this. You shouldn't be getting compensation. The YouTube community appears to get easily derailed by arguments over who is getting paid for what and what their motivations are for participating. Earlier this month, for instance, the anti MLM YouTuber, Kimberlea denounced the community. So this was made in January. So earlier this month, that person did not denounce the community. That was in October. Your timeline is not correct. Yeah, so YouTuber Kimberlea denounced the community and joined Monet. One of the companies that anti MLM community hates the most, we just hate this company for no reason. It's not like this has happened to people that have used Monet and that there is strong evidence that this has happened to those people, that there are lawsuits against this thing happening to people. No, we just hate Monet. We hate them the most. On Instagram, she apologized for showcasing Monet in a negative way and vowed to work as a distributor at least until she could pay the company back $6,541.86. She made off her YouTube video. I felt like I was in a cult when I was in the, in parentheses, anti MLM community, she told me. They are full of hatred, 100%. I think fair criticism is fair. But I mean, tell me if I'm wrong in the comments, but what part of this makes logical sense at all? There's so many instances where this person assumes a fact or assumes that something is a fact, states it as if it's a fact, but never actually explains why that thing is a fact, goes into it. The article derails from talking about a pandemic that stokes a backlash to MLMs into talking about YouTube drama and Kimberlaya. It doesn't make any sense to me, this article whatsoever. I'm trying to make sense and take away fair criticism, but none of it makes any logical sense to me and a lot of it is worded in a very odd and strange way to make a lot of assumptions and a lot of generalizations about an entire community. Opportunism is a common pitfall for social movements, large and small, but particularly for those that happen online and rely on platforms that reward individuals for bogarting attention. Here's my question. I would love in the comments to have a conversation about this. Do you think it's wrong for more and more people to join a movement and to make content on a movement? Because for me, yes, I've seen a lot more anti-MLM creators come onto YouTube and make YouTube videos on anti-MLM or go onto Instagram or TikTok or Facebook and make anti-MLM content or put out the anti-MLM sentiments and facts about how anti-MLM is bad. But for me, I'm like, that's because the movement is growing. With any movement that's growing, you're going to have more voices in that movement. To look at that and be like, that's opportunism. And once again, I am someone who is a very cynical person. I'm someone who gets on my platform and basically is extremely cynical towards a lot of people and industries and companies, but it's usually based on some sort of reasoning and fact. The only reason and fact that this person is saying that people are joining anti-MLM because of their opportunistic or because of opportunism is because people are gaining followers on YouTube for talking about this. They themselves have noted the large movement and how much anti-MLM as a whole is growing. So if you're going to talk about a subject that already has a large movement surrounding it, that movement is also going to want to listen to your input and outlook on something. If you make good content. To say that that is opportunism, but never actually provide any reasoning for why that is besides the fact that people are gaining a platform. Like it makes no sense to me. A large group of mostly women pushing back against an industry that has targeted them for years. Is it a movement or is it a collection of individuals expressing dissent and sometimes leveraging that frustration into a personal brand? Is it a movement or is it a collection of individuals? This was in an actual article asking, is it a movement or is it a collection of individuals expressing dissent? Let me look up what a movement is real quick. What is a movement? A group of people working together to advance their shared political, social or artistic ideas. Descent, the expression or holding of opinions at variance with those previously commonly or officially held. So to basically say that something isn't a movement because it's individuals coming together to express dissent, which is a movement. What are, and then to write before that, say it's a group of women. I just, does anyone else sense the internalized misogyny in this entire article? The entire thing is basically the insinuation of an attack on individuals who express dissent in the anti MLM movement and flawed ways which they go about in doing so. I do not think anyone is perfect in the way that they do their activism. In fact, I think a lot of people are very far from perfect, pita, but to basically go after an entire movement because you don't like a way that a few people express their frustration or dissent or that people are able to actually be compensated for the time, work and effort that they put into spreading the message about a movement that they care a lot about. It's just like, what is this article? What is this article? So I wanna go into some of the logical fallacies that are used in this article because as I've kind of alluded to in explaining this article in what was said and all of that, there are a lot of logical fallacies in this article. Now, first I wanna say no one is immune to logical fallacies. We all make the occasional mistake by using a logical fallacy in an argument or a debate but I am shocked, shocked at the extensive use of logical fallacies in this article, mind blown. So I'm gonna talk about it. So let's take a look at some of the logical fallacies that this article uses. There are two types of logical fallacies. There's a formal fallacy and an informal fallacy. A formal fallacy is a breakdown in how you say something. The ideas are somehow sequenced incorrectly. Their form is wrong, rendering the argument as noise and nonsense. And then there's an informal fallacy which denotes an error in what you're saying that is the content of your argument. The ideas might be arranged correctly but something you said isn't quite right. The content is wrong or off kilter. I do feel like the article has a lot of ad hominin attacks by suggesting anti MLM content is for self-profit, making merch, having AdSense is somehow not only a part of the anti MLM movement but also detrimental to the movement and also suggests time and time again that the anti MLM movement is mean and hateful that we hate companies instead of critique them that we claim certain things about MLMs instead of that it's proven over facts and statistics and that we spend our time making fun of or attacking people within MLMs when at least in my opinion that is something that I am never concerned with or involved myself in whatsoever. It's all subtle insults to the community that act like a conclusion to this supposed question that they have created within the article is anti MLM for advocacy or for self gain? But in reality, none of these have to do with the initial topic that has been presented in the article and of course is this broad generalization of an entire community using very intentional words like hateful, drama, spat. An ad hominin is an insult used as if it were an argument or evidence in support of a conclusion. Ad hominem to Kwakwe. This is when you accuse someone of not practicing what they think. There's ad hominem circumstantial in which you try to invalidate the argument by claiming it is within the arguer's self-interest. These attacks on the anti MLM community through using very targeted words are meant to somehow be the conclusion to an argument that they're presenting in the article. And it makes a lot of vague assumptions without ever fully evaluating those assumptions, examining both sides or explaining their very targeted use of verbiage throughout the article. I do feel like there are straw man arguments used throughout the article, although I will say I get straw man and red herring mixed up often. So I'll explain the two. The straw man argument is a cheap and easy way to make one's position look stronger than it is. Using this fallacy, opposing views are characterized as non-starters, lifeless, truthless and wholly unreliable. By comparison, one's own position will look better for it. A straw man argument and ad hominem fallacies can occur together, demonizing opponents and discrediting their views. Our views aren't valid because we're only in this for personal gain. Our movement isn't a movement, it's just us leveraging something into a personal brand. You see how it feels like there's a subtle straw man argument presented throughout the article that is characterizing our perspective inside of things in a way that just isn't there to begin with in my opinion. The red herring fallacy is a logical fallacy where someone presents irrelevant information in an attempt to distract others from a topic that's being discussed, often to avoid a question or shift the discussion in a new direction. So to go from talking about the anti-MLM movement and the focus to all of a sudden talking about YouTubers, anti-MLM YouTubers, which has nothing to do with the topic and the fact that anti-MLM YouTubers sell merch, therefore most people in the anti-MLM group are leveraging a brand. It is a complete distraction from the topic with irrelevant information to the anti-MLM movement and most people who participate in the movement. In my opinion, the most prevalent and most used logical fallacy throughout this article is the false dilemma or false dichotomy fallacy. This fallacy has a few other names, the black and white fallacy or the either or fallacy and the bifurcation, I'm just not gonna say that because I don't wanna embarrass myself, fallacy. This line of reasoning fails by limiting the options to two when there are in fact more options to choose from. Sometimes the choices are between one thing, the other thing or both things together. They don't exclude each other. Sometimes there is a whole range of options, three, four, five, 145. However, it may happen the false dichotomy fallacy errors by oversimplifying the range of options. So by saying that the anti-MLM community is either a group of individuals expressing dissent or it's people leveraging frustration into a personal brand is a false dichotomy. Those are not two exclusive options. The anti-MLM community is hundreds of thousands of individuals that make up a collective and want to see changes in legislation in the MLM industry. They want to see MLM cease to exist, but also the predatory business practices that exist in a variety of ways that have allowed MLMs to thrive, to cease to exist as well. To basically say that the entire anti-MLM movement is only one of these things or the other of those things, nothing else and no in-betweens is a false dichotomy. It is simply not true. This article also presents a false cause because the anti-MLM community is growing. People are jumping onto the bandwagon for their own personal gain. They're being opportunistic. Like you can't say that just because a movement is growing, people are being opportunistic just because they have a YouTube following. They're being opportunistic or just because they pivoted to make anti-MLM content. In a similar way, there's a correlational fallacy there because YouTubers are building a brand and because YouTubers are getting views, because they offer merch, because they're able to build a following that they're only making anti-MLM content for that reason. They've created a correlation between the two without the acknowledgement that YouTubers of a variety of topics will do the exact same thing. They're not correlated. It's like YouTubers do that regardless. YouTubers get subscribers regardless of what content you make if you make good content. And you can't say that people making anti-MLM content and people building a brand are correlated in that same way. All I personally see in the article are hasty generalizations. A hasty generalization is a general statement without sufficient evidence to support it. A hasty generalization is made out of a rush to have a conclusion leading the arguer to commit some sort of illicit assumption, stereotyping, unwarranted conclusion, overstatement or exaggeration to generalize the entire community in these specific ways, to establish things as already being a factor without providing reasoning as to why you reached that conclusion, why you think that way, besides one or two links to some sort of random obscure YouTube video or some sort of Reddit post with 10 upvotes that doesn't back up what you're saying and whatsoever. Those are hasty generalizations of an entire community. And I think the main reason why I'm so frustrated with this is as I've said before, my face is all over this article that I was never quoted in, that I had no say in, that I wasn't able to give my input in. So I think I care more than usual about what's being said in this article. So I decide I'm kind of weirded out by the structure of this article. I'm kind of confused about a lot of things. I'm going to email this reporter some of my input on this article. It's basically a lot of what I said in this video. So why would I repeat myself? But I sent this reporter this long an email about all of my different thoughts and how I felt they kind of got this situation wrong or really misinterpreted it in some really weird ways. And this reporter replies, saying, hi Madison, thanks so much for this. I did email you about this story in our previous thread to see if you'd be available for it. But I'm sorry you weren't able to set up an interview. I'm grateful for your perspective though. We'll definitely reach out going forward when my coverage involves anti-MLM. And that was so weird to me because on this email, I had never received anything about an article like this. So I was so confused. So then I'm like, okay, when did I get an email from them? And I was like the only person that I have communicated with regarding any sort of reporting is someone who reached out to me about the breakaway movement and the video that I did on the breakaway movement. So I looked back through that. And so what ended up basically happening is this was at the time in January when I was dealing with a lot of first trimester pregnancy sickness. And it was really, really bad. It was to the point where I would be laying in bed all day. I could not do anything. It was bad. They asked me to do a phone call or a zoom on the breakaway movement. And at first I'm like, yeah, sure I'm down because for whatever reason I was over ambitious about what I could accomplish when I really just couldn't do anything at that moment. So then they suggest Wednesday they ask what time I'm free. And I never get back to them because at that moment, at that time I was in the ER from pregnancy and I tell them this. I tell them, I'm sick. I'm sorry. I have to reschedule. I can't do this. I'm sick. They ask if we can do Wednesday. I never reach out again because I'm literally in the ER getting an IV because I'm feverish and need to be examined. So then a few days later they send an email saying and this was so weirdly worded to me. Hey, just wanted to check in. I'm also working on a story about the anti-MLM movement and how social media has led to cracks in the MLM facade. If you have time tomorrow, would you be open to discussing your experiences more broadly? This is a shorter story on a tighter deadline while the breakaway movement reporting is more ongoing. I know there was some drama a few months back so I'm interested in how that was resolved but more interested in the big picture and whatever you might have to say as one of those core creators. I'm so glad that I didn't get this email but I also feel like knowing that that article was rushed makes a lot of sense in a lot of ways too. When you first read that at first glance, it's like, oh, I would love to provide some input on anti-MLM. I would love to say what my work is and what I'm doing and focusing on but then actually looking into it. First off, talking about how social media has led to cracks in the MLM facade is such a small, small portion of the article. She only very briefly and literally one sentence for each creator that this reporter quoted mentioned their experiences and the big picture that core creators of the anti-MLM movement have to say about the bigger picture of anti-MLM. So that wasn't, I do not think their true intentions for reaching out because that's not what the article was at all. So reading this, it almost feels and this is once again, I don't wanna be too critical because I know as a reporter, you probably have deadlines. It's no matter what, there's always gonna be someone unhappy on a topic you cover. I have experienced that in videos that I have done where there's always gonna be someone who feels like you didn't cover their side or you didn't cover the full picture no matter how in detailed or in depth you go. But I feel like the only actual truth in this email was the part where this reporter says, I know there was some drama a few months back and I'm interested in how that was resolved. And knowing how she quoted the other content creators that she quoted in the article, I'm like, how would she have quoted me if I did actually reach out to this person, if I did actually be involved in the article? So I send an email back on both emails where she reached out to me basically saying, I'm so sorry, I didn't get this. Just so you know, I was in the hospital because of first trimester pregnancy, sickness and all of that. I would still love to have a phone call with you or a Zoom and discuss this situation because I do feel like you have gotten a lot of things wrong or just worded it very weirdly. And I'm not sure if it's a misunderstanding or what's going on, but I would love to talk to you and actually tell my side. But she never responds. I send another email saying, just so you know, by the way, one of the photos you used of me is when I was 16. She never responds. So after that, after me sending multiple emails on my input on this story, getting no response and just being frustrated because I'm like, there is some very clear and obvious issues with this article. I send them an email one more time saying, I've emailed you multiple times on your article, places I feel you were providing misinformation, my thoughts and evidence I had regarding this situation, considering my face is all over the article, even though I was never given a proper chance to give my input, considering I've been extremely sick. With a lack of response at this moment, I'm questioning your intentions with this article, especially in regards to the misinformation and logical fallacies slash inexactitude. I do not feel I was given a proper chance to speak on a topic I care a lot about. And after speaking with some of the creators you have quoted, which I'll speak about in a little bit, I also feel they were not provided with the realities of your intentions with this article and were asked targeted questions for a specific narrative, AKA the email that I originally got saying that this was going to be an article on the broad anti-MLM movement, how it's leading to cracks in the MLM facade versus the article that was actually written. That's misleading. I'm sorry I was unresponsive beforehand in regards to the breakaway movement, but I do not think you've had any sympathy for my hospitalizations nor my pregnancy sickness. I want to understand where you're coming from, but none of your actions surrounding this article make any sense to me and I feel very disrespected. So she responds, hi Madison, I apologize for not getting back to you sooner. I am sincerely sorry that we weren't able to speak for this story. It was unfortunate timing giving your health issues of which I am also deeply sympathetic, which that's fair, you know, people have deadlines. It's not, you know, it would be ridiculous for me to take it all personally. It's just very strange, the timeline events of how everything has unfolded. I've heard from people who were critical of the article and others who felt it was accurate. And unfortunately, the best I can tell you, but the thing is like the emails that I sent, it was like, here's specifically what you said and why it's just blatantly wrong or why it just logically makes no sense. You know, I also at the time was working on the video that I did on Kay. And I was trying to also warn this reporter like, just so you know, you quoted this person in your article basically bolstering them up as a reason why the anti-MLA movement is hate. But there are some serious situations regarding this person and you're quoting them as a reliable source. Just so you know, this is what's going on. Unfortunately, the best I can tell you is that I've read all these criticisms and will bear them in mind if I cover the community again. I do sincerely appreciate you taking the time to voice your perspective, which is a valuable one. Kind of felt like just blowing smoke up my ass if I'm being frank. I do think overall this experience with this article and this reporter has made me a lot more cautious about the articles that I cite and use as resources. I think it's reminded me to be very careful of logical fallacies used in articles that I read to ensure that I'm not getting information from a source that's either biased or that makes conclusions that are devoid of logic or sound reasoning. Even with this video itself, if you feel that I'm too biased or opinionated with a lot of the ways that I talk about this situation, if you feel like a lot of my conclusions aren't based on really facts or I don't come to it in a logical way, it is so important to first off, go read the actual article and draw your own conclusions from it. I don't want to discourage anyone from doing that and to also seek out other sources and other opinions than my own. After encountering this specific incidence, I've realized that I want to communicate that message more and more because it is something that is really important to me. As you can see, it's a new day. I got tired, pregnancy makes me tired a lot easier, but I ended up finding out a ton of information on the situation that needs to be talked about. So I'm gonna do a two-part series and in the second part, I'm interviewing Heather Rainbow and not the good girl or Josie Nycoy to anti-MLM creators who are interviewed for this Atlantic article. So you can hear from different perspectives other than just my own. The last thing I'll talk about in this episode is in relation to some of the really flawed arguments I've been seeing on critiquing the anti-MLM community. Now the thing is I don't want it to come across like I or anyone in the anti-MLM community is not receptive to criticism. I absolutely think that criticism, when fair, is completely welcome. And I myself am going to offer some possible critiques to the anti-MLM community in this video, things we can work on, just a valid criticism off of my own perspective and the perspective of those in the community that I've talked to. When talking about possible problematic aspects of anti-MLM content, the anti-MLM movement, the anti-MLM community, whatever it is you want to call it, I guess, I think it's important for me to take accountability and things that I may have done wrong as well, because no one is perfect in the way that they go about in doing their activism. And a huge thing that I got wrong was when I would mention the FTC and the study that 99% of people lose money in an MLM. While this study is linked on their website, and you can find it under an FTC.gov URL, this study was not conducted by the FTC. And so that's a huge possible way that I could have been spreading misinformation by generalizing this very complex study. I'll be linking the study down below because I think it's super important that you read the study. It is such a good study. And it's under the Consumer Awareness Institute. The title is called The Case for and Against Multilevel Marketing by John M. Taylor. And it's a super in-depth study that ended up finding that 99% of people lose money. There are also various, various other studies. And even in MLM income disclosures, you can see that the majority of people within MLMs do not make even minimum wage when participating in an MLM. So I still think all of these studies are super valid, but I wanted to hold myself accountable for ways that I could have possibly overgeneralized a very complex and nuanced situation regarding the studies made on MLMs and the income, profit, all of that. But overall, the end of the story is most people lose money, most people do not make any money. It is still not something that I would see as a reliable way to make any sort of income, whether passive or active. And there are so many other ways that you can make money online or through passive income or staying at home that I think are so much better than an MLM. But overgeneralizations, hasty generalizations, ad hominin attacks, all of these things are not valid criticism. And they're not anything that you can actually apply, that you can actually take in as constructive criticism and approve upon. Rhetoric matters. Even if it's just one article that spreads a certain type of rhetoric, a certain mentality, a certain narrative, that one tiny article can do a lot of damage. We've seen this with so many other arguments or debates. Someone creates a false narrative or an overgeneralization of something. And those in which that narrative is convenient for them to believe will piggyback off of that and continue to spread and spread this idea. When in reality, it's all based upon ridiculous logic and just bad faith arguments. So let's talk about some other arguments I've been seeing on the internet in relation to this article and just all of its ridiculousness. First, let's talk about Emily Leah. If you don't know who Emily Leah is, she is a former anti-MLM content creator, turned not anti-MLM content creator, turned kind of anti-MLM content creator. I think that's the gist of it. She made a video rejoining the anti-MLM movement. Overall, I think that anyone can change their content, make content on whatever they want. There is no gatekeeping. If someone wants to make a video on anti-MLM content, in my opinion, they're welcome to. That isn't at all what we're talking about today, but the main thing I do want to point out about this recent video of hers rejoining the anti-MLM movement is when Emily Leah briefly mentions that the anti-MLM community has mean girl behavior. This generalized statement was made without any sort of proof and it was just supposed to be accepted at face value. Give me something to work with here. Give me something so I can understand where you're coming from. I want to understand why this narrative is being spread other than BS misogyny, but no one's giving me actual valid reasons to believe this. But after hearing about this, I ended up asking around to a few different people within the anti-MLM community with a lot of experience because I was like, what is this like insinuation of hate going on in anti-MLM, of mean girl behavior going on? I do not speak for everyone and my experience is not indicative of the anti-MLM experience as a whole. So I was asking around and from what it seems like, the main places where anti-MLM content can become toxic is on Facebook, which would make sense because I am not on Facebook. Deleted dashes a while ago. The main thing that I have heard from multiple individuals is that there are some fringe Facebook groups where people within that Facebook group will attack what MLM reps are wearing, they'll attack their makeup, they'll attack their looks, their appearance, their voice, just kind of pick apart MLM reps as people instead of the companies or the predatory practices or shady messages that MLM reps send, all of that. Which of course someone's appearance or how they talk or how they carry themselves has nothing to do with the problems of the MLM industry. It just doesn't, it's an irrelevant argument. In my opinion, it isn't okay to attack someone based on their looks, how they carry themselves, things that they can't change about themselves or are completely irrelevant to the argument because you know what that is, that's an ad hominin attack. Picking apart someone's appearance, their voice, things that don't have to do with the problems of the MLM industry is an ad hominin attack. It distracts from the original argument and has nothing to do with speaking about the predatory practices of the MLM industry. While admittedly some things that MLM reps do is just kind of funny. Arbonne white parties are a great example of that. I just kind of think they're funny and it can be hard not to focus on that, not to focus on the overall boomerish aspect that is MLM reps and the way that they carry themselves at the end of the day, we do have to be cognizant that focusing on that and not focusing on the predatory practices of the MLM industry can detract from our message and can cause people to view the anti MLM community as a hateful or mean girl type of community. It is important to be aware of that. No matter if you post on Facebook groups, the anti MLM Reddit on Instagram, on your personal profiles or on YouTube, what you say does matter in the overall fight to fight against MLMs and the damage they do. Do I know the perfect way to carry across this message? I don't. I am only one out of hundreds of thousands of people speaking out against this and that's why I've been hesitant to criticize approaches in the anti MLM movement or the way people talk on it because I don't know. I don't know what's gonna get the message across. I am not a perfect person and I have made a lot of mistakes personally. Who am I to tell people how to post and what not to post and what to do? That's not my business. You can do whatever you want on social media but I do wanna at least put it out there because at this point it seems like this whole narrative of mean girl behavior in anti MLM is just mean and bitter women is not going away unfortunately. And as we all know, the majority of anti MLM content is focused on spreading educational information on the dangers of the MLM industry and helping to spread awareness so that less and less people get scammed by these companies. So if you identify as being part of the anti MLM movement and you see content creators or you see people online that are using ad hominin attacks that are picking apart things that have nothing to do with the problems within MLMs. I do think it's important to call that out. I do think those within the movement have a responsibility to call out the bad behavior of those within the movement. If we don't do it, others will and then they'll generalize the entire movement as being that way. Or you could also just ignore that content, not consume it. But honestly, I do feel the issue is a lot deeper than that and has to do with internalized misogyny. Internalized misogyny is when women subconsciously project sexist ideas onto other women and even onto themselves. Unfortunately, we all have preconceived notions about how women should exist in society. Women are expressing their dissent publicly and even building a career off of speaking out against predatory industries that have targeted them for decades. Unacceptable, unallowed, especially the part where women make money on the internet who allowed them to do that. And the thing is internalized misogyny is something that exists everywhere whenever women are involved. And I see Hintai Amalem as a movement that has brought out a lot of flavors of internalized misogyny. Like pick your flavor of internalized misogyny. Would you like the internalized misogyny where we're mad at women for making a career on the internet and expressing their opinions? Or would you like the internalized misogyny where we look down on women who fall into the MLM scheme? Take silly group photos and act in a way that I know is all fake and a lie. Yeah, the truth does hurt. And the reality is in the anti MLM community, there is definitely internalized misogyny, unfortunately. It exists on both sides of this conversation, but the level at which it exists varies depending on the person you're speaking with, which brings me to my next anti anti MLM talking point that has been used. So some random dude made a video recently about how anti MLM is anti women. A dude said a movement made up of mostly women is anti women. Is anti multi-level marketing anti women? So a couple of things with this statement itself. I like his approach to it. However, I don't fully agree with this statement on the surface. I don't think this is completely true. First, multi-level marketing companies as a whole are not necessarily female dominated. A lot of product based MLMs tend to be female dominated. However, a lot of idea based MLMs, such as like, you know, forex, you know, foreign currency trading, multi-level marketing companies, certain MLM schemes that have gotten into the Bitcoin and cryptocurrency world tend to be very male dominated. A lot of real estate based ones or ones based on selling insurance or selling legal advice. So, you know, there's like legal shield in Primarica and a bunch of those tend to prey upon men. As I've already said, yes, internalized misogyny exists in all areas where women are involved in some level or some capacity, but to label an entire movement that is built around speaking out against a predatory industry as against women. That is not the point of anti MLM. We're not performative activists out here branding ourselves as pro women. In fact, that's what MLMs are doing, telling them that their boss babe lifting them up when in reality, those women are losing thousands and thousands of dollars. That is not anti MLM, that is MLMs. But on top of that, MLMs don't just target women. So anti MLM itself is not made for just women. Anti MLM is truly a movement made for everyone. I myself make content for everyone because there are MLMs out there that target every single vulnerable demographic in existence. And funny enough, funny enough, no one in anti MLM was saying that anti MLM was just a women thing, but everyone critiquing anti MLM tends to say that anti MLM is just a women thing. Tends to say that anti MLM is just for women, putting words in our mouths about what anti MLM is and labeling it as just for women as an easier way to critique it. I wonder why? The heart of the movement is warning people against predatory business practices so they don't get scammed we're not anti people, we're anti predatory industries. So anyways, that's part one of this two part series in which I debunk all of the ridiculous arguments made about the anti MLM community and those in the anti MLM community. And in part two, things are about to get a lot worse because I'm going to interview Heather Rainbow, an anti MLM creator on TikTok and Josie Nycoy, AKA not the good girl here on YouTube and talk about their experiences being quoted in this article. I also look a little bit more into this reporter as well as some of the Atlantic's shady past. Through all of this, I've discovered information that's truly shook me to my core and has made me question what sources can even be seen as trustworthy. So that's coming in part two. I also want to thank my Patreon members, thank you so much for supporting the channel. They're all up here on screen right now. I appreciate you guys a lot. Also, if you want to support my bubbly lettered merch that is gonna be in the description of this video as well as like right below. I think I have like the Teespring link so you can check that out and I will catch you guys all in the next one. Part two coming soon. Bye. One, two, three. Two, one, two, three.