Please do not let Will’s tantrum over getting the attention he wanted distract you from the amazing Minneapolis coverage Gaby has been producing all month (all while also writing a book because she’s just that good)

February 20, 2026 - 23:40 UTC

52
26
345
f off

journalists mostly suck now
0
0
19
1
1
70
If Gaby didn’t want her “amazing Minneapolis coverage” distracted from perhaps she, the author, should have thought twice about writing a piece carefully designed to grab as much Bluesky attention as possible.
3
0
261
No one cares about bluesky.
0
0
0
Reading it, it seems like Stancil is the one who wants to bring Bluesky into attention repeatedly. It's like a bone stuck in his craw.
2
0
20
Like, I do get the dilemma here, a painstaking piece about mutual aid in Minneapolis will not get the same number of clicks as just pointing at Will Stancil while making the jerk-off motion. But you do have to chose a lane.
2
0
198
Oh look a reporter did something shitty and other reporters circle the wagons. How unusual.
3
0
179
the seung min kim piece.
the dave weigel thing.
1
0
2
Will is not a reporter.
2
0
7
If she didn't want to be the center of such a firestorm, why did she write the piece the way she did? Surely she knew what was going to happen - if she didn't she didn't do enough research. Repulsive mess.
1
0
8
"I'm so clever, Will Stancil will never read my article about him and post about it online. I'm so clever."
0
0
2
What? You can't write pieces leveraging a crisis to write internet drama, then complain that your internet drama piece is a "distraction."

"Gaby" is trash. And so are all of you defending her and the Verge's shitty editorial policies.

The world has real problems you fucking vacuous assholes.
2
0
108
You stencil fans are more annoying than he is. Which is crazy.
0
0
0
You are scum
1
0
5
"getting the attention he wanted"

what a shitty accusation against someone who has consistently said he wants reporters' focus to be on the movement

this is abuser language, gross for you to adopt and and gross for gaby to promote
0
0
17
Nikki I’ll be honest, I don’t see any reason to read verge again. I don’t know if you do internet drama to get eyeballs or what but I can’t be arsed to bother with this when serious stuff is going on.
4
0
110
ok but you're also an actual fascist so who cares bsky.app/profile/steviebaby.bsky.social/post/3mecxgeh3uk2x
1
0
13
Is her article about Stancil part of that amazing coverage? It seems like people can't, or won't, defend the article itself but they also won't say that it's bad or a mistake either, so they attack people who don't like the article instead for being upset the wrong way.
0
0
26
Reporters haven’t circled the wagons this hard since the Nuzzi book release.
3
0
87
Good example
0
0
2
Or when it was revealed that Hillary Clinton sharing some risotto recipes through email was more important than the Republican nominee for president was photographed with teenagers in bikinis in a well-known child trafficker's home.
0
0
14
Reporters aren't serious people; they care about clicks and eyeballs.

We wouldn't have Trump if they weren't extremely into "profiles" of controversy.
0
0
3
I can't believe people are mad at Gaby for publishing her burn book entries about Will!

Don't they know she's a #bossbabe?

Is this woke cancel culture run amok?
0
0
15
“tantrum” lmao
2
2
223
Lmao indeed
1
1
24
Olivia Nuzzi and Jake Tapper both wrote books too...so that's a pretty low bar for any "just that good" confetti tossing. But your buddy shills for a Vox Media brand, so I get the need for a side hustle. I'm sure GrubHub is hiring. After all, who knows who goes 👋🏼👋🏼 in the next round of Vox layoffs?
1
0
15
This mentality you have? It sucks.
2
0
65
I mean, it’s a terrible piece, done for no apparent reason other than personal animus, but other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how do you like the author’s other plays?
0
0
8
He’s actually being way more reasonable about this than most people would and this response sucks
1
0
81
Why do you people always circle the wagons when one of your own screws up?
0
0
19
'Sure we wrote this awful article because we're petty children that want to foster an online beef, but we have been doing good things otherwise' is not an actual reason, it's the thinking of a child asking for a free pass to do a naughty because you ate all your vegetables. Do better.
0
0
24
Wait she can engage in catty, mean-girl backstabbing AND write a book? At the same time? Holy shit you guys, I think we've got the next Sinclair Lewis on our hands.
0
0
4
You seem like quite the asshole.
0
0
12
Nikki this is straight up gaslighting and you should rethink it.
0
0
8
This is a really shitty thing to say.
0
0
3
I blocked him months ago, my timeline is so much better, instead of trying to interpret his vague quips I just go day to day not ever hearing a damn thing he says. Amazing how not hearing him I seem to be having far less eye-rolls and “WTF are you even saying here?” moments.
1
0
16
Yeah? bsky.app/profile/mostlyreading.bsky.social/post/3mfddtldwy22e
0
0
39
Is her book about the Rothschilds?
0
0
1
Unfortunately, her deciding to write a catty hit piece at the behest of seething leftists too dumb to know what a graph is does reflect poorly on her
0
0
3
Why are you all such smarmy jerks?
2
0
73
Hard to believe a click generator would circle the wagons for a fellow click generator. But here we are.
0
0
30
I, personally, would not be leveraging my reputation as a journalist to define someone questioning my peer’s journalistic ethics as a “tantrum”, if I were you—even if there was considerably more evidence it might actually be true. Absolutely no way having integrity is this hard. I don’t believe you.
1
0
40
If I want to read Will's posts I can do so right here, I didn't need a few hundred words about his posts in Verge.

That you are responding to this by saying "well look at all the OTHER articles we wrote" is a tacit admission that you know this specific article was worthless.
2
1
80
Yeah, its funny there's no great defense of any of the content of this article.

Basically just the fig leaf that it was under the most liberal interpretation "news worthy" and, eh uhhhh check out these *other* stories that manage to treat open fascism as more than an internet slap-fight side-show🤙
0
0
32
Oh *thats* how he ended up mentioned in my feed. I thought I'd muted him months ago!
0
0
2
How about her wild antisemitism?
0
0
2
0
0
9
Fuck you
0
0
0
Shame on you
1
0
23
Yeah I’m not gonna be reading The Verge again anytime soon. Have fun I guess
0
0
91
Is the tantrum in the room with us right now
0
0
90
"distracted" implies we even knew who she was to begin with.

I didn't. And a stunt like this doesn't make a good first impression.

Your site might get a short-term engagement boost from this drama. But I think you're underestimating the reputational risks of doing stuff like this.
0
0
20
Garbage take, Nikki. We see you. bsky.app/profile/volts.wtf/post/3mfdgpbxa6k2u
1
0
19
You are a disgrace
1
0
27
See, THIS is a tantrum:

www.gawkerarchives.com/adult-website-editor-throws-twitter-tantrum-over-his-br-1697459743
0
0
7
bsky.app/profile/xiruxi.bsky.social/post/3mer7oy6xfk2t
1
0
4
Let me tell you, there’s definitely tantrums going on and it’s the journalists defending each other.

“I know her! You’re wrong!”

People who don’t know her see the Rothschild shit. Just say it was mistake.
0
0
4
What about Gaby's antisemitism? Can that distract us?
0
0
2
I've changed my mind. The problem with American journalism is that journalists don't have it hard enough.

(You're going to hide this like every other critical comment. Really makes you look not mad.)
0
0
39