Itemoids

TikTok

Elon Musk Wants You to Think This Election’s Being Stolen

The Atlantic

www.theatlantic.com › technology › archive › 2024 › 10 › elon-musk-x-political-weapon › 680463

Elon Musk didn’t just get a social network—he got a political weapon.

It’s easy to forget that Elon Musk’s purchase of Twitter was so rash and ill-advised that the centibillionaire actually tried to back out of it. Only after he was sued and forced into legal discovery did Musk go through with the acquisition, which has been a financial disaster. He’s alienated advertisers and turned the app, now called X, into his personal playground, where he’s the perpetual main character. And for what?

Only Musk can know what he thought he was buying two years ago, though it seems clear the purchase was ideological in nature. In any case, the true value of X—the specific, chaotic return on his investment—has become readily apparent in these teeth-gnashing final days leading up to November 5. For Musk, the platform has become a useful political weapon of confusion, a machine retrofitted to poison the information environment by filling it with dangerous, false, and unsubstantiated rumors about election fraud that can reach mass audiences. How much does it cost to successfully (to use Steve Bannon’s preferred phrasing) flood the zone with shit? Thanks to Musk’s acquisition, we can put a figure on it: $44 billion.  

Nothing better encapsulates X’s ability to sow informational chaos than the Election Integrity Community—a feed on the platform where users are instructed to subscribe and “share potential incidents of voter fraud or irregularities you see while voting in the 2024 election.” The community, which was launched last week by Musk’s America PAC, has more than 34,000 members; roughly 20,000 have joined since Musk promoted the feed last night. It is jammed with examples of terrified speculation and clearly false rumors about fraud. Its top post yesterday morning was a long rant from a “Q Patriot.” His complaint was that when he went to vote early in Philadelphia, election workers directed him to fill out a mail-in ballot and place it in a secure drop box, a process he described as “VERY SKETCHY!” But this is, in fact, just how things work: Pennsylvania’s early-voting system functions via on-demand mail-in ballots, which are filled in at polling locations. The Q Patriot’s post, which has been viewed more than 62,000 times, is representative of the type of fearmongering present in the feed and a sterling example of a phenomenon recently articulated by the technology writer Mike Masnick, where “everything is a conspiracy theory when you don’t bother to educate yourself.”

[Read: Elon Musk has reached a new low]

Elsewhere in the Election Integrity Community, users have reposted debunked theories from 2020 about voting machines switching votes, while others are sharing old claims of voter fraud from past local elections. Since Musk promoted the feed last night, it has become an efficient instrument for incitement and harassment; more users are posting about individual election workers, sometimes singling them out by name. In many instances, users will share a video, purportedly from a polling location, while asking questions like “Is this real?” This morning, the community accused a man in Northampton County, Pennsylvania, of stealing ballots. Popular right-wing influencers such as Alex Jones amplified the claim, but their suspect turned out to be the county’s postmaster, simply doing his job.

The most important feature of the Election Integrity Community is the sheer volume of posts: dozens per hour, such that scrolling through them becomes overwhelming. It presents the viewer with fragmented pieces of information—more than any casual news consumer (or most election offices, for that matter) might be able to confirm or debunk. And so the feed is the purest distillation of what Musk’s platform wishes to accomplish. He has created a bullshit machine.

There are three major components to this tool. The first is that X exposes its users to right-wing political content frequently, whether they want it or not. To test this theory, I recently created a new X account, which required me to answer a few onboarding questions to build my feed: I told X that I was interested in news about technology, gaming, sports, and culture. The first account the site prompted me to follow was Musk’s, but I opted instead to follow only ESPN. Still, when I opened the app, it defaulted me to the “For You” feed, which surfaces content from accounts outside the ones a user follows. A Musk post was the first thing I encountered, followed quickly by a post from Donald Trump and another from an account called @MJTruthUltra, which offered a warning from a supposed FBI whistleblower: “Vote, arm yourself, Stock up 3-4 Months Supply of Food and Water, and Pray.” After that was a post from a MAGA influencer accusing Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg of “censoring patriots,” followed by posts from Libs of TikTok (a video from a school-board meeting about girls’ bathrooms), MAGA influencers Benny Johnson and Jack Posobiec, and Dom Lucre, a right-wing personality who was once banned from the platform for sharing an explicit image of a child being tortured.

[Read: I’m running out of ways to explain how bad this is]

X is also experimenting with other algorithmic ways to surface rumors and discredited election news. The platform recently launched a new AI-powered “stories for you” feature, which curates trending topics without human review and highlights them prominently to selected users. NBC News found five examples of this feature sharing election-fraud theories, including debunked claims about voting machines and fraud in Maricopa County, Arizona.

This algorithmic prioritization represents the second prong of the approach: granting far-right influencers and the MAGA faithful greater reach with their posts. A Washington Post analysis of lawmaker tweets from July 2023 to the present day show that Republican officials’ posts go viral far more often than Democrats’ do, and that Musk's right-wing political activism has encouraged Republican lawmakers to post more, too, “allowing them to greatly outnumber Democrats on users’ feeds.” According to the Post, “Republicans’ tweets totaled more than 7.5 billion views since July 2023—more than double the Democrats’ 3.3 billion.” Musk has effectively turned the platform into a far-right social network and echo chamber, not unlike Rumble and Truth Social. The difference, of course, is X’s size and audience, which still contains many prominent influencers, celebrities, athletes, and media members.

The third and final element of X’s bullshit engine is Musk himself, who has become the platform’s loudest amplifier of specious voter-fraud claims. Bloomberg recently analyzed more than 53,000 of Musk’s posts and found that he has posted more about immigration and voter fraud than any other topic, garnering roughly 10 billion views. Musk’s mask-off MAGA boosterism has also empowered other reactionaries with big accounts to shitpost in his image. When they do, Musk will frequently repost or reply to their accounts, boosting their visibility. Here’s a representative example: On October 23, the venture capitalist Shaun Maguire posted that he’d heard a rumor from a senator about more ballots being mailed out in California than the number of legal voters. “Can anyone confirm or deny this?” he asked his more than 166,000 followers on X. Musk replied to the post, noting, “I’m hearing one crazy story after another.”

[Read: Elon Musk says he would recognize a Harris election victory]

On this point, I believe Musk. The billionaire is inundated with wild election speculation because he is addicted to the rumormongering machine that he helped design. This is the strategy at work, the very reason the volume of alarming-seeming anecdotes about a stolen election work so well. Not only are there too many false claims to conceivably debunk, but the scale of the misleading information gives people the perception that there is simply too much evidence out there for it all to be made up. Musk, whether he believes it or not, can claim that he is “hearing one crazy story after another” and coax his bespoke echo chamber to proffer evidence.

X’s current political project is clear: Musk, his PAC, and his legion of acolytes are creating the conditions necessary to claim that the 2024 election is stolen, should Kamala Harris be declared the winner. But the effects of that effort are far more pernicious. If you spend enough time scrolling through the Election Integrity Community feed and its unending carousel of fraud allegations, it isn’t hard to begin to see the world through the paranoid lens that X offers to millions of its users. It is disorienting and dismaying to have to bushwhack through the dense terrain of lies and do the mental calisthenics of trying to fact-check hundreds of people crying nefarious about things they haven’t even bothered to research. Worse yet, it’s easy to see how somebody might simply give in, beaten into submission by the scale of it all. In this way, even though X is Musk’s project, it may actually be built in the image of the MAGA candidate himself. A $44 billion monument to Trump’s greatest (and only real) trick, as he put it in a 2021 speech: “If you say it enough and keep saying it, they’ll start to believe you.”

The Celebrities Are Saying the Loud Part Quietly

The Atlantic

www.theatlantic.com › culture › archive › 2024 › 10 › kamala-harris-celebrity-endorsements-eminem › 680430

With his hat low over his eyes, and the sharpness in his voice sheathed, Eminem seemed slightly less than amped to be at the Kamala Harris campaign rally last Tuesday in Michigan. In a minute-and-15-second speech with nary a punch line or pun, the 52-year-old rapper saluted Detroit, voting, and freedom, and closed with all the passion of an HR professional giving a benefits update: “Here to tell you much more about that, President Barack Obama.”

Obama took it upon himself to play the part of the showman. Summoning his goofiest dad energy, he hooted the words of Eminem’s “Lose Yourself,” claiming he was so nervous that he had “vomit on my sweater already / mom’s spaghetti.” This line shook me to my Millennial core. It echoed the time at a North Carolina rally in 2008 when Obama cited Jay-Z lyrics by brushing some metaphorical dirt off his shoulder—a moment that christened an era in which Democratic politics and pop culture were brazenly intermingled. Partisanship and hipness seemed, ever so briefly, compatible. But as Eminem’s anti-performance had just indicated, we are now so far from then.

With veteran public idealists such as Bruce Springsteen and the West Wing cast on the trail for Harris lately—and with Donald Trump touting old allies such as Kid Rock alongside recent converts from hip-hop—it can be easy to overlook just how much celebrity culture’s relationship to political culture has shifted over the past few cycles. Mainstream entertainers have, as is typical, lined up for the Democrats—but they have, as is less typical, not tried to make much fuss about their participation. They seem to understand that the nature of celebrity itself has changed, and that praise from the glitzy class can be a liability.

Revisit, if you dare, the 2008 Will.I.Am music video “Yes We Can,” which featured a motley cast of stars—Scarlett Johansson, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Herbie Hancock—speaking, singing, and piano-playing along to Obama’s soaring rhetoric. The video’s earnestness, so cringeworthy today, gives the lie to the summer hype about Harris recapturing Obama-mania. Moreover, it embraces an obsolete—and always shaky—cultural vision: “the arts” as represented by one unified team of dreamers whom voters tend to admire rather than despise.

The 2016 Hillary Clinton campaign, leaning on star-studded concerts and a sitcom cameo, learned the hard way that this vision had started to die out in the 2010s, because of both technological and political shifts. Chopping the prime-time-viewing masses into factions, social-media and streaming platforms turned out to be resentment-making machines; it is, simply, annoying to be told that an actor is important and popular when you, in your own media consumption, never encounter his or her work. Trump was a perfect champion for the resulting and widespread sense of cultural dislocation. He was an entertainer, sure, but an entertainer who humiliated other entertainers on his TV show. When Hollywood began pumping out resistance-themed entertainment early in his presidency, it produced little art of lasting significance, but it did bolster Trump’s claims to be aligned with the people rather than the elites.

Eight years later, after the pandemic spread yet more disunity and QAnon spread conspiracy theories about what goes on inside Hollywood’s private corridors, mistrust of celebrities seems to be at a high. On talk radio and TikTok, one of the hottest cultural topics of the moment is the sexual-abuse accusations against Sean “Diddy” Combs. The stories articulated in the federal indictment and dozens of civil suits against him are chilling (Combs denies them), but the chatter they’ve inspired on social media tends not to be focused on sympathy for the victims. Rather, many commenters seem gleeful with hope that the investigation into Combs will take down the many stars who attended his White Parties—events that, for years, symbolized the height of aspirational excess in pop culture. Trump used to brag about his closeness with Combs, but that hasn’t stopped him and his surrogates from continuing to tag Democrats as the party of celebrity decadence. Trump shared a fake image of Harris with the rapper; Elon Musk recently posted on X, in response to Eminem’s presence at Harris’s rally, “Yet another Diddy party participant.”

Mass antipathy toward celebrities does not mean, however, that stars don’t matter anymore. Quite the opposite. This is the age of stans—a word partially coined by Eminem, which now refers to internet-enabled superfandom. Stans are not just loyal to particular entertainers; in many cases, they’re monomaniacal and tribalist, rooting against rivals just as much as they root for their faves. At the same time, the rise of influencers—a term that can refer equally to a TikTok goofball and a philosophy podcaster—is helping further break down the border between entertainment and media. An influencer’s job isn’t merely to amuse; it’s to spread ideas and opinions. We’ve evolved into a polytheistic celebrity culture, worshipping countless mini-idols that command a different form of adulation in each household.

[Read: The truth about celebrities and politics]

The structure of this new fame ecosystem doesn’t fit neatly with national politics. Authenticity, the feeling that a celebrity is showing their real self, is what attracts fans, and nothing is less authentic than being a partisan hack—especially given the disillusionment spread by the pandemic, inflation, and the war in Gaza. Celebrities who want to talk about the election are probably smart to cultivate an air of reluctance. Take, for example, Call Her Daddy’s Alex Cooper, who gave a lengthy, apologetic explanation to listeners before interviewing Harris on her podcast: “As you know, I do not usually discuss politics, or have politicians on this show, because I want Call Her Daddy to be a place where everyone feels comfortable tuning in.”

One of the most haunting pieces of media from this election season is The Daily Show’s recent dispatch from the Gathering of the Juggalos, the music festival thrown by the face-painted rap-metal group Insane Clown Posse. The fans (called juggalos) who are interviewed profess all sorts of liberal leanings—about abortion, the economy, trans rights—but also say they’re nonvoters; seemingly as a matter of identity, of pride, they feel outside the system. Violent J, one of ICP’s two members, told The Daily Show that he supports Harris. But really, he didn’t seem to care very much about the election either way; he didn’t even know who Tim Walz is.

Even the most plugged-in stars seem a bit detached. Chappell Roan, the breakout singing sensation of the year, has rejected calls for her to endorse a candidate. After backlash, she clarified in a TikTok video that she would be voting for Harris, but that because of various issues—primarily America’s support for Israel’s war—she couldn’t rightly call that vote an “endorsement.” In September, Taylor Swift gave Harris a much clearer boost, but her Instagram post on the matter was strikingly muted in tone, especially given Trump’s efforts to troll her. She hasn’t weighed in on the campaign since then. (Don’t bet against some crucial, last-minute activism—Swift is, among many other things, a master of timing.)

Then there’s Eminem. The rapper is a pretty prize for any political campaign; more than two decades after his first hit, he still commands a huge following among young men, a demographic that may well decide this election. The news that he’s voting blue isn’t much of a surprise, but he seems to be refining his methods with each election. During the 2016 campaign, he released an anti-Trump diss track; its opening line lives on as a meme-able example of how clunky protest art can be. During 2020, a campaign waged mostly online and in ads, he lent “Lose Yourself”—the ultimate inspirational anthem—to a Biden-Harris commercial. This time, he gave that short, halting speech, and it was, in its way, perfect for this cycle. The video is likely to pop up in the TikTok or Instagram Reel feeds of fans, many of whom might find Eminem’s palpable sense of burnout relatable and his words, therefore, more credible.

This past Friday brought to the campaign trail one of America’s highest-wattage figures: Beyoncé, who spoke at a Harris rally in Houston along with her mother, Tina, and her Destiny’s Child bandmate Kelly Rowland. Beyoncé’s potential involvement in this election has been speculated about for months. Her track “Freedom” became Harris’s rallying song, and fans theorized feverishly—and incorrectly—that she’d perform it at the Democratic National Convention. But when Beyoncé finally joined Harris onstage on Friday, it wasn’t to sing or dance. In a calmly uplifting speech, she focused on the historical nature of electing the first Black, female president. And she added this crucial stipulation: “I’m not here as a celebrity.”

JPMorgan is suing people that used the TikTok 'infinite money glitch' to steal thousands of dollars

Quartz

qz.com › jpmorgan-chase-fraud-infinite-money-glitch-tiktok-1851683108

JPMorgan Chase (JPM) has begun to file lawsuits against people that withdrew hundreds of thousands of dollars using a so-called “infinite money glitch” that went viral on social media last summer.

Read more...

MomTok Is the Apotheosis of 21st-Century Womanhood

The Atlantic

www.theatlantic.com › culture › archive › 2024 › 10 › momtok-secret-lives-of-mormon-wives-review-feminism-beauty-domesticity › 680410

If you’re interested in modern beauty standards, the social value of femininity, and the fetishization of mothers in American culture, Hulu’s recent reality show The Secret Lives of Mormon Wives is a rich, chaotic product. I watched the entire series in a couple of days, gasping and Googling, shriveling inwardly every time I caught a glimpse of my haggard self in the mirror compared with these lustrous, bronzed, cosmetically enhanced women. The stars of the show are young wives and mothers in Utah who have become notable in a corner of the internet called MomTok; their online side hustles include performing 20-second group dances and lip-syncing to clips from old movies, the financial success of which has helped them eclipse their husbands as earners. As an encapsulation of 21st-century womanhood, it’s almost too on the nose: a discordant jumble of feminist ideals, branded domesticity, and lip filler.

The Secret Lives of Mormon Wives is a logical end point for lifestyle-focused reality television, which has never quite been able to decide whether women should be gyrating on a pole or devoutly raising a dozen towheaded children. This show bravely asks: Why not both? “We’re all moms; we’re all Mormons. I guess you could say a lot of us in MomTok look similar … We’re just going off based [on] what’s trending,” Mayci (28, two kids) explains in the first episode. The camera cuts to the women filming a video. “Mayci, I need you to twerk your ass off, as hard as you can,” Jen (24, two kids) shrieks. Jessi (31, two kids) comments on the volume of Jen’s cleavage, amplified by her breastfeeding garments. Each woman has waist-length, barrel-curled hair and teeth as white as Mentos; most wear jeans and a tight Lycra top. No children are in sight. What we’re watching isn’t the kind of dreamy domesticity that traditional momfluencers post on Instagram. It’s something more interesting: the conflation of “motherhood” as an identity with desirability, fertility, and sexual power.

[Read: The redemption of the bad mother]

America loves mothers more than women, an inclination the 2024 election has demonstrated in abundance. Mothers are given license to do things that other women often aren’t, like getting angry or even seeking political power, as long as it’s understood that whatever they’re doing is on someone else’s behalf. In a commencement address to a conservative Catholic college earlier this year, the Kansas City Chiefs kicker Harrison Butker even advised the female graduates in his audience to forgo careers altogether and focus on supporting their husbands as homemakers. The women of MomTok, while pushing back against some of the strictures of the Mormon Church, are living out this advice to a curiously literal degree. They’re financially supporting their husbands as homemakers, thanks to social media. “Who is currently, like, the breadwinner at home?” Demi (30, one child) asks at one point. “I think all of us?” Mayci replies. This looks like progress—women making money, at home, with the flexibility to set their own schedule and pick their own projects. But underlying this portrait is a darker reality: The only women who get to succeed at this kind of “work” are the ones who look the part.

The women of MomTok aren’t tradwives, the smock-wearing, Aga stove–warmed, calf-snuggling performance artists who fascinate and perplex us on social media. The Secret Lives mothers flirt and assert their independence and critique the men who try to control them. Some got married as teenagers after unplanned pregnancies; several are divorced. (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints issued a statement ahead of the show’s release noting that “a number of recent productions depict lifestyles and practices blatantly inconsistent with the teachings of the church,” seemingly in reference to a widely publicized scandal involving one cast member that’s the least interesting part of the series.) Late in the season, Demi plans a girls’ trip to Las Vegas that includes VIP tickets to Chippendales, which prompts an alarming conflict between the more traditional Jen and her husband, Zac, whom she’s supported through college and is about to fund through medical school. Zac, despite having been given $2,500 by his wife to gamble on the trip, is furious that she’d agree—even as a joke—to see a male dance show. He threatens to take their kids and divorce her. “This type of behavior is exactly what MomTok is trying to break in our LDS faith,” Demi tells the camera. “We’re not doing this anymore.”

But even as they reject what they see as the suffocating confines of one institution for women, they’re bolstering another. The pursuit of a certain kind of highly maintained beauty for all eight women on the show seems to dominate everything else. In one episode, while getting Botox injections, several of the women gossip, semi-scandalized, about the fact that Jessi drank alcohol from a flask at Zac’s graduation party; the irony that they’re in that moment high on laughing gas administered to ease the pain of the injections seems lost on everyone. In a different episode, Jessi tells her friends that she’s getting a labiaplasty, which she refers to as “a mommy makeover,” because childbirth has changed the shape and appearance of her vulva. Plastic surgery, Mayci explains, is tacitly sanctioned by the LDS Church (though LDS leaders today caution against vanity); Salt Lake City has more plastic surgeons per resident than Los Angeles.

“We wanna make sure that we’re taking care of our bodies, and we’re always told that our body is a temple,” Mayci adds during the Botox episode. “It’s actually surprising that [the Church doesn’t] really care about plastic surgery?” The moment underscores the space for interpretive tension within a faith that discourages toxins while prizing beauty in all its forms as a reflection of morality and a source of happiness. And yet it’s hard not to read this show another way: as evidence of a specific online culture that encourages women to bear children while also requiring them to erase the visible evidence of their pregnancies. The physical toll of giving birth is covered up, made as inconspicuous as the children who have left these same marks. That these mothers be beautiful and desirable in this realm is paramount.

In one sense, this is what reality television has always wanted from women. Those who can exude sexuality from the safety of the domestic sphere have long been able to build lucrative businesses in the process. In 2022, a writer for Bustle counted 52 separate beauty lines launched by stars of the Real Housewives franchise, who leveraged their fame to sell perfumes, wigs, nail polish, “firming lotion,” and false eyelashes. But the Secret Lives stars are notable for how intricately their brands are enmeshed with fertility—not the mundane reality of day-to-day motherhood but the symbolic power of sexual eligibility and maternal authority. On Secret Lives, Mayci is seen launching Baby Mama, a line of “natal supplements” for women. No one on the show seems to question the primacy of beauty. After filming wrapped, Layla (22, two children) revealed in a podcast interview that she’s had six separate cosmetic procedures over four months. “I had kids young, and I love my babies to death, but they screwed up my body, and I wanted to feel hot again,” she said. Her co-star Demi added, “That’s just the Utah way!”

[Read: How did healing ourselves get so exhausting?]

Women who don’t accept—or can’t meet—these terms are, tellingly, less visible on the show, and thus less able to leverage their new fame. Mikayla (24, three children), a doe-eyed, strikingly beautiful woman who struggles with a chronic illness that causes skin flare-ups gets sidelined; she has no primary storylines of her own, and much less screen time than the others. This gravitation toward more visibly perfected stars stems perhaps from the aspirational ideal that momfluencers represent, as Sara Petersen writes in her 2023 book, Momfluenced. “As mothers, our everyday lives are full of gritty motherhood rawness, of children refusing to wear snow pants in blizzards, or the strain of holding back tears and curses upon stepping on another fucking Lego.” She adds, “Why would we want to spend our spare time consuming someone else’s rawness when we’re sick and tired of our own?”

The women of MomTok are enthralling because they symbolize the possibility of a mother’s desirability and influence—and of a broader sisterhood. They are, with the exception of the one stock villain, Whitney (31, two children), impossibly likable, funny and scrappy and unserious. They constantly invoke their sliver of the internet as a pillar of friendship and prosperity—as in “I really want this MomTok group to survive,” and “We need to get back to what MomTok was before all this happened.” Taylor (30, three children) says that the group built its following in the hope of changing people’s attitudes about Mormon women—and making space for them to be bolder and more outspoken than the norm. But all of the women on the show seem to have wholly absorbed the idea that to be heard as mothers in America, you first have to be seen, in high-definition, expensively augmented perfection.

In her 1991 book, The Beauty Myth, Naomi Wolf noted that the proliferation of sexualized images of women in music videos and television and magazines toward the end of the 20th century represented “a collective reactionary hallucination willed into being by both men and women stunned and disoriented by the rapidity with which gender relations have been transformed: a bulwark of reassurance against the flood of change.” The same dynamics have since been amplified a thousandfold on TikTok, where you have precisely one second to hook someone who’s idly scrolling. The politics of visibility are more loaded than ever. Beauty, as Wolf wrote decades ago, has fully taken over “the work of social coercion that myths about motherhood, domesticity, chastity, and passivity, no longer can manage.” The lifelong project of self-maintenance used to be, for women, a distraction from recognizing the things we really need. Now it’s the most valid and laudable form of labor.

When you buy a book using a link in this newsletter, we receive a commission. Thank you for supporting The Atlantic.

This Influencer Says You Can’t Parent Too Gently

The Atlantic

www.theatlantic.com › ideas › archive › 2024 › 10 › tiktok-gentle-parenting-trend › 680038

Photographs by Jenna Garrett

The kids held it together pretty well until right after gymnastics. At the end of a long day that included school, a chaotic playdate, and a mostly ignored lunch of sandwiches, the parenting coach Chelsey Hauge-Zavaleta picked up her twins from the tumbling gym around 5:30. The two 8-year-olds joined their 6-year-old sister inside Chelsey’s silver minivan.

Chelsey, an energetic 41-year-old, promotes gentle parenting, a philosophy in which prioritizing a good relationship with your kid trumps getting them to obey you. I was tagging along with her family for a few days to see how her strategy—stay calm, name emotions, don’t punish kids for acting out—works in practice.

During the long, hot, winding ride back home, things began to devolve. One of the girls didn’t want any music. One wanted music and to sing along. One was turning the heater up too high—at least according to her sister, who was overheating. (I agreed not to name the kids or to disclose which one behaved in which way.)

[Read: The fairy-tale promises of Montessori parenting]

Chelsey pulled over to settle everyone down. In the soothing, melodic tone that she recommends parents use with their children, she assured the girls that having some dinner would make them feel a lot better.

“No it won’t,” one of the girls said.

“You’re feeling like it won’t,” Chelsey said, validating her daughter’s feelings—another one of her parenting tricks.

“Don’t talk to me like I’m 3 years old,” the girl shot back.

By the time they arrived home, two girls were in tears. There were fruitless demands for screen time and ice cream. Chelsey held one sobbing child while another chopped vegetables. A freshly prepared soup was ignored, and the girls ate that ubiquitous kid comfort food: pasta with shredded cheese.

To an untrained eye, it might look like Chelsey’s methods didn’t work that night. The evening seemed to substantiate the fears of parents and experts who think gentle parenting might be too gentle, turning kids into entitled monarchs and parents into their exhausted therapists. But Chelsey says her goal wasn’t to get the kids to behave better. It was to maintain her loving connection to them. She blamed herself for placing too many demands on them throughout the day, and for not preparing them for the presence of a reporter. “They were super dysregulated,” she told me later. “They didn’t have the capacity to cooperate.”

I wouldn’t have handled the post-gymnastics meltdown exactly the way Chelsey did, but I’m also not sure how I would have handled it at all. (My son is six months old, so I have a little time before he starts complaining about my song choices.) I understand that you’re not supposed to yell at your kids, but also that, occasionally, you’re supposed to get them to do what you say—like briefly stop looking at a screen or eat some actual food. This is the essential conundrum that brings people to gentle parenting.

By day, Chelsey runs a parent-coaching business with her own mom, Robin Hauge. I’m like a lot of the parents who turn to them for help, and like a lot of the Millennials who are nervously having kids these days: schooled in the latest child-psychology research, in possession of disposable income, and desperately trying to do better than my own parents. Many clients, Robin told me, are “searching for something different than they had.” Maybe that something, I thought, is gentle parenting.

Top left: Chelsey at home before heading to pick up her kids from school. Bottom right: Her mother, Robin, during a visit with the family. (Jenna Garrett for The Atlantic)

I found Chelsey through TikTok, where she has some 300,000 followers. Almost as soon as the blue plus sign materialized on my pregnancy test last July, the app’s algorithm magically took note and began serving me her videos.

My husband and I spurred this process along, cramming, as we were, for the midterm known as “baby.” We bought books. We downloaded name apps. We fought sectarian wars over the relative correctness of rival infant-sleep strategies. The parenting internet was happy to oblige. At one point, I saw an Instagram post that explained how to talk to my kid about avocados. (Hint: Do not say “they’re good for you!”) It was all so confusing, and I desperately wanted to do it right.

Chelsey seemed to offer a step-by-step parenting plan. In one video, she shows just how solicitous gentle parents should be toward their children. Role-playing both the parent and the child, she demonstrated what not to do when your kid refuses to put her jacket on.

Wearing a pink bike helmet, Chelsey portrays a willful child screaming, “I don’t want to put my stupid jacket on!” Then, slightly louder, Chelsey plays the mom, saying, “I don’t care! It’s cold outside. Put your jacket on!” Playing the child again, Chelsey grabs the jacket and thrashes it around the room.

Then Chelsey breaks character to address her TikTok audience. By yelling over her child, Chelsey explains, she escalated the situation. If this happens, she says, the parent should soften her demeanor. They could, for example, apologize. “You know what, sweet pea? That was really tricky with the jacket,” the parent should say. “I’m so sorry … I’m going to work on using my inside voice.” Then she could cook her kid’s favorite dinner to make up for it. If your child doesn’t respond when you apologize, Chelsey says, that’s fine—it’s on you to repair the relationship.

[Read: How raising a child is like writing a novel]

Chelsey also explains how a parent should handle a child screaming about her jacket. Instead of yelling back, she says, you should speak in a whisper and carry the jacket yourself, or stuff it into their backpack. “Frankly,” she says, “I would not force a kid to put a jacket on.”

Watching the video, I tried to imagine my parents apologizing to me after I refused to do something they said. This was difficult, because my parents have never apologized to me, and also, until I was well into my 20s, I never refused to do anything they said.

Russian parents like mine, who believe that children should always listen to their parents and that getting cold is a death sentence, would have long ago hit “Unfollow.” Indeed, when I recently told my cousin about gentle parenting, he scoffed. “This is the road to prison,” he said.

I don’t have many parenting role models who aren’t Russian. Most of my American friends don’t have kids. I myself grew up in the ’90s in West Texas, where a “gentle” punishment meant detention instead of a beating. I want to do better by my son—if only I can figure out how.

Left: Chelsey brushes her daughter’s hair in the morning before school. Right: One of her daughters holds a chicken in the school garden. (Jenna Garrett for The Atlantic)

Chelsey and her husband, Samuel, live with the girls in an airy house tucked into a redwood forest north of Santa Cruz, California. Their days consist of work-from-home sprints interrupted by taxiing their kids to school and activities, a lifestyle that’s common in their area.

In 2018, Chelsey, who has a Ph.D. in education, was working as a research associate at Stanford, parenting three children under 3, and also helping raise her teenage niece, who had come from Mexico to stay with the family for a while. By her own description, she was flailing. One morning, all three of the little girls fought over the one purple spoon in a set of rainbow-colored spoons. Chelsey tried suggesting the yellow spoon, or the red spoon, or that they take turns with the purple spoon. No dice. “It was like, everybody all crying all the time,” she told me.

Noticing her struggles, Robin, Chelsey’s mom, who runs a school for children with behavioral problems, thought Chelsey might benefit from taking a parenting class she offered, in which she taught parents how to handle challenging children. Perhaps sensing how such a proposal would land with her own adult daughter, she had Chelsey’s cousin bring up the idea. “You can’t suggest anything to your daughter,” Robin told me.

Chelsey was skeptical. But she now says the course “changed everything.” Previously, she had tried to learn about gentle parenting—which is also sometimes called respectful parenting, and arose in the middle of the 20th century out of concerns that parents were too harsh—from reading books, but she didn’t understand how to put the ideas into practice. The class made Chelsey realize that she was speaking to her kids negatively much of the time—stop hitting your sister! Often, what the kids needed was not more instructions but what she calls “connection,” or feeling loved and seen by their parents. (The correct way to resolve the spoon fight, Chelsey says, was to validate each child’s reality, saying something like “You really wanted the purple spoon. The orange spoon doesn’t taste good.” The child might still pout, but that’s okay.)

Chelsey and Robin both say that Chelsey and her brother were parented gently—Robin never yelled, for instance. But there was a difference between experiencing gentle parenting herself and seeing how it could apply to her own kids.

After the class was over, Robin never said “I told you so.” That’s something “you never do as a mother,” she told me. One of Robin’s first recommendations is to rid your interactions with your child of these types of “zingers.” They feel like an “eff you,” she said. (I always thought that was the point.)

Chelsey left her job at Stanford to help her mother teach a course called Guiding Cooperation. Together, they grew that course into a business. They charge a fee that starts at $5,000 per family for a 12-week parenting program that includes video lessons along with group and individual coaching. At any given time, the program includes about 40 to 50 families, they said, whose kids typically range in age from 2 to 13.

In one Zoom group-coaching session I observed, Chelsey asked her parent-clients to close their eyes and imagine sitting at a table with all the materials they’d need to work on a beloved project. “Around the table are all of the people that are the perfectly right people to do this project with,” she said softly. “Maybe you’re creating; maybe there’s bowls of yarn, or computers, laptops.”

Then, suddenly, she started clapping loudly. “Get the laptops, get everything! There’s a giant fire! Take that out of the room!” she yelled.

Chelsey asked the parents how that felt. They said alarming, panicky, and angry. Chelsey explained that many children are in this state when parents try to transition them from one activity to another too quickly. “The same body sensations happen for our kids,” she explained.

This is a recurring theme of Chelsey and Robin’s advice—that kids have many of the same emotions adults do. When they’re overwhelmed, they sometimes cry and scream. Don’t you? When punished, they don’t think about what they’ve done; they stew.

The goal of their programs is to decrease tantrums, but not through punishments or even rewards like sticker charts (too transactional, and kids often stop caring about the stickers). Chelsey says she has never given her girls a time-out. Rather than compliance, Chelsey and Robin seek cooperation—meaning the child does what you say because they want to do it. “I don’t even use the word obey or disobey,” Robin told me.

Instead of ordering kids to stop doing something, Chelsey advocates “positive opposites”—telling kids what they can do instead. Don’t instruct them not to jump on the couch; tell them to jump on the trampoline.

One of Chelsey’s daughters in the playroom (Jenna Garrett for The Atlantic)

Praise for good behavior is a part of Chelsey’s philosophy, but she warns that this, too, requires care. Many parents go with “good job,” for instance. But Chelsey argues that this is confusing, because children don’t have jobs. Instead, she suggests commenting on specific things children do well, such as “You came down to dinner on time! Cool!” and “You’re sitting next to your sister keeping your hands on your own body? That’s awesome!”

During transitions, she recommends talking to younger kids in a sing-songy voice and in a kind of broken English: Okay, water bottle in backpack, now we’re walking to car. She says it’s easier for kids to process information this way. Chelsey and Robin suggest trying these strategies three to five times before switching tactics if they don’t seem to be working.

Psychologists I interviewed said that some of these strategies are evidence-based and effective. Most kids respond well to praise, for example, and tactics like singing and offering alternatives can make it more fun for kids to do what they’re told. However, they argue that consequences are also important, and that showering kids with positive attention when they misbehave can backfire. Time-out, in particular, has been proved to change behavior and improve academic performance, says Corey Lieneman, a clinical child psychologist at the University of Nebraska who co-wrote a book about time-out. For older kids, she told me, taking away privileges such as video games is effective—and is, in a way, a form of time-out. Lieneman also said there’s nothing wrong with using rewards, because “no little kid is going to just want to do all of the things that we want them to do.”

[Read: No spanking, no time-out, no problems]

Chelsey and Robin admit that their method can be difficult, but they argue that this is just how much effort it takes to be a parent—especially when you have strong-willed kids. They push back on the typical reassurance that all a parent really needs is to be “good enough”—the early-child psychologist D. W. Winnicott’s notion that a parent need not be perfect, but “ordinary devoted.” “Good-enough parenting is not actually good enough for all children,” Chelsey says in another TikTok video. If you have a more challenging child, she says, “you’re gonna have to be more intentional, you’re gonna have to be more careful with your language, you’re gonna have to spend more time co-regulating. And honestly, what a gift that is, to have a child who demands more.”

Left: Playroom fun. Right: One of Chelsey’s daughters reaches for a clay bird at school. (Jenna Garrett for The Atlantic)

There’s no way to objectively measure Chelsey’s success. She and her mom say that no one has ever asked for their money back, and that most parents see good results.

But some parents may struggle to raise their kids this way. For one thing, although Chelsey argues that you would feel less busy if you yelled at your kids less, some parents work so much that there’s no time to prepare a special apology dinner. The U.S. surgeon general recently deemed parental stress a public-health concern, in part because of the sheer amount of time this kind of intensive parenting requires.

I spoke with one mom, Katerina, who hasn’t taken Chelsey’s class but who learned about gentle parenting through her own reading. (She asked to go by her first name only because she has a public-facing role at work.) For a while, she said, she tried to be an ultra-gentle parent with her two girls, but she found it hard to find time to validate all of their feelings and still get dinner on the table. “It requires a certain level of commitment and capacity that I think most moms don’t have,” she told me. She ultimately landed on trying to talk through her kids’ feelings most of the time, but also sometimes using rewards and consequences, such as taking away her 9-year-old’s chocolate for lying. “She accepted her fate,” she told me.

And although children’s emotions are obviously important, some parenting researchers feel that gentle parenting doesn’t sufficiently emphasize how kids’ actions can affect other people. What if, in refusing to put her jacket on, the child made her sister late for school too? (Robin and Chelsey counter that they are teaching kids how to be empathetic by modeling empathy toward them.) “Societies all around the world also focus on how your actions and your words affect other people’s feelings,” Michaeleen Doucleff, an NPR science correspondent and the author of Hunt, Gather, Parent: What Ancient Cultures Can Teach Us About the Lost Art of Raising Happy, Helpful Little Humans, told me. Some gentle-parenting experts promote empathizing with kids by saying things like I know, it’s so hard to share. “Well, is it? Is it hard to share?” Doucleff said. Do you actually want your kid to think that?

Rebecah Freeling, another Bay Area parenting coach, who specializes in kids with behavioral problems, says that gentle parenting can leave some parents struggling to set boundaries. What happens if you’re validating feelings and heaping on praise, but your kid still does drugs behind your back?

Chelsey says kids should never be punished, other than through occasional “natural and logical consequences”—like if a child throws and breaks the TV remote and it will no longer turn on the TV. Even something egregious, such as a teenager skipping school, Chelsey says should be handled by trying to determine, “What is going on at school, that you are not going?”

The most obvious problem with this approach is that it doesn’t adequately prepare children for the real world, where a boss is less likely to ask “What is going on at work, that you are not going?” than she is to fire you if you don’t show up.

[Read: Is it wrong to tell kids to apologize?]

But children, Chelsey counters, “are going to learn to be responsible adults when their nervous systems are honored.” She also seems to have a rather rosy view of corporate America: If you’re failing at work, “I hope your boss is supporting you to get back to a place of regulation so that you can do the work.”

Chelsey and her children in the school garden (Jenna Garrett for The Atlantic)

In Freeling’s view, however, it’s acceptable for a teen to, say, lose a preordained amount of screen time if they won’t fulfill basic responsibilities. Some parents who have tried gentle parenting come to Freeling saying that they feel bullied by their kids, or like they can’t ever say no. Some, Freeling said, sound like they’re describing an abusive relationship with a spouse: I do everything he asks, and he’s still hitting me.

Sometimes, even connecting with your kid can start to feel transactional—I’m connecting. Why aren’t you listening? One mother told Freeling that after she stopped trying to apply gentle parenting, “she could now free herself from the belief that she wasn’t loving her child right.”

When I asked Robin if people have trouble remembering the techniques she and Chelsey teach, she said, “One hundred percent.” Indeed, their tactics seem hard to recall, and to execute, when everyone is tired and hungry and preoccupied—so much so that even Chelsey sometimes deviates from her own advice. She says she doesn’t make her kids share, but when I was with them, one of the girls tried to call dibs on a bag of potato chips, and Chelsey told her to give some to her sisters. When one of the girls began eating cantaloupe with a ladle, Chelsey told her, “Not for eating, honey,” which is not a positive opposite. “It would have been stronger had I said, ‘We eat with a spoon,’” she acknowledged later.

After a few days with Chelsey and Robin, though, I came around to the view that their work is more than just a series of expensive scripts that you’ll strain to remember mid-meltdown. I realized that sometimes the point of this kind of program is to be not a permanent cure but a kind of ongoing emotional support. Watching Chelsey’s group-coaching sessions, I noticed that many parents seemed worried they were the only ones who couldn’t get their kids to behave. One mom, whose child had ripped something off the wall on the way out of preschool, said she feels “shame around the perceived idea that I can’t control my kid.”

As dozens of people have already warned me, parenting is the “hardest job you’ll ever have,” and I got the sense that, for her clients and TikTok followers, Chelsey is shouldering some of this intensely personal toil. There is something about Chelsey that makes people feel like it’s all going to be okay—you’re going to do better than your parents, but you’ll also mess up a lot, and that’s normal.

“In the ’90s, gentle parenting was, like, smacking your kid with the spoon instead of your hand,” said Mary Brock, one of the parents on the call. Later, she told me she likes how Chelsey and Robin listen to her, and give her encouragement without judgment. “I wish I had a gentle parent,” Brock added. “That’s what this class does for me.”

Chelsey often says that the first step to calming your kids is to calm yourself. Maybe gentle parenting, then, is less about soothing kids than it is about soothing their parents.