this post was submitted on 22 May 2026
55 points (100.0% liked)
Slop.
857 readers
380 users here now
For posting all the anonymous reactionary bullshit that you can't post anywhere else.
Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.
Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.
Rule 3: No sectarianism.
Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome
Rule 5: No bigotry of any kind, including ironic bigotry.
Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.
Rule 7: Do not individually target federated instances' admins or moderators.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Reading this makes the mask so much crazier to me because I assumed the mask would be for obfuscation (this is some random guy who doesn't want his face out there) and not impersonation. Like I did think it was super-weird regardless, but a privacy nut having an out-of-the-box solution is still within my imagination. The best explanation my imagination can come up with here is that the real guy has another obligation but really wants to keep the interview so asked a friend to do it and also both of them are total headcases. I'm racking my brain because that's way too far-fetched to be reality.
If they send out some random dude with fictionalized name and credentials the fallout is a couple people online calling out fox news for poor vetting and essentially no one anywhere batting an eye at that. What context could possibly make wearing a literal mask of this existing person be preferable to the random dude?