<div class="outpost-pub-container"></div> <p>A new tool searches your LinkedIn connections for people who are mentioned in the Epstein files, just in case you don’t, understandably, want anything to do with them on the already deranged social network.</p><p>404 Media tested the tool, called EpsteIn—as in, a mash up of Epstein and LinkedIn—and it appears to work. </p><p>“Search the publicly released Epstein court documents for mentions of your LinkedIn connections,” the <a href="https://github.com/cfinke/EpsteIn"><u>GitHub repository for the tool</u></a> reads. </p><p>The tool can output a report that shows each result’s name, company, and their position; the total number of mentions across all the searched documents; excerpts from each matching document, and links to the original material on the Department of Justice’s website.</p><div class="kg-card kg-callout-card kg-callout-card-grey"><div class="kg-callout-emoji">💡</div><div class="kg-callout-text"><b><strong style="white-space:pre-wrap">Did you find anything interesting in the Epstein files? I would love to hear from you. Using a non-work device, you can message me securely on Signal at joseph.404 or send me an email at joseph@404media.co.</strong></b></div></div><p>In my case, the tool found 22 connections with mentions in the Epstein files. But, many of these are likely false positives. Some of them were very common names. The tool also found 5 hits for “Adam S.” Obviously, there could be a lot of people with that name and initial. The repository acknowledges this: “Common names may produce false positives—review the context excerpts to verify relevance.” </p><p>Last week the DOJ published 3.5 million pages of files related to the investigations of Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. The massive dump also contained videos, images, and audio recordings. <a href="https://www.404media.co/doj-released-unredacted-nude-images-in-epstein-files/"><u>404 Media found</u></a> it included multiple unredacted photos of fully nude women or girls, with the DOJ only taking them down days after their upload. We also <a href="https://www.404media.co/musk-to-epstein-what-day-night-will-be-the-wildest-party-on-your-island/"><u>covered Musk’s inclusion</u></a> in the files.</p> <iframe frameborder="no" height="200" src="https://playlist.megaphone.fm?p=TBIEA2761282490&amp;episodes=1" width="100%"></iframe> <p>The dump contains a wealth of other tech elites, <a href="https://www.wired.com/story/epstein-files-tech-elites-gates-thiel-musk/"><u>WIRED<em> </em>reported</u></a>. Peter Thiel, Larry Page, Sergey Brin, and many others all make an appearance. </p><p>But a mention does not necessarily mean those people were up to anything nefarious (although many, many were, obviously). Jeff Moss, the founder of the DEF CON hacking conference, is mentioned in the files because Vincenzo Iozzo, <a href="https://san.com/cc/did-a-renowned-hacker-help-jeffrey-epstein-get-dirt-on-other-people/"><u>a well-known hacker</u></a>, offered to introduce Epstein to the DEF CON founder.</p><p>On Reddit, Moss wrote, “Vincenzo approached me for free badges and I said no, and pointed him to the Epstein Wikipedia page and tried to warn him to stay away from any involvement. I didn’t realize how deep it went. As far as I know Epstein never attended. All this other behind the scenes stuff is wild, but not surprising.”</p><p><a href="https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7425140824834912256/"><u>Moss’s LinkedIn post</u></a> is also where 404 Media first saw the EpsteIN tool.</p> <div class="outpost-pub-container"></div>

<p>Brilliant post from <a href="https://om.co/2026/01/26/does-evidence-even-matter/" rel="noreferrer">the wise Om Malik</a>:</p><blockquote> <p>Federal agents shot an American citizen, and it was caught on video. It is the sickening outcome of virulent tribalism sweeping our world, enabled by the internet. We have forgotten that life is not a football game. Pick your team. Defend your side. Ignore evidence if it contradicts your tribe.</p> <p>We think democracy is the flag, the ability to vote, or words in the Constitution. It is not. Democracy is an idea, an ideal, an agreement. Once you decide evidence does not matter if it hurts your team, you have already lost the thing you think you are defending. We are not seeing what is happening to us.</p> </blockquote> <p>One of the bits I do when training or lecturing about online communities is this:</p><p><em>The wonderful thing about the internet is that it allows you to find people like yourself.<br />The terrible thing about the internet is that it allows you to find people like yourself.</em></p><p>The way that the tech companies have used algorithms makes the latter more likely than the former. But we, in journalism, are also guilty of playing the polarisation game, and stacking the balance towards the negative side of online community. </p><h2 id="the-polarisation-trap">The polarisation trap</h2><p>As the industry shifts back to community building as the heart of audience work, we really need to consider how we do it in a way that doesn't increase tribalism and polarisation. Why? Well, there are both social arguments, which Om outlined above, but also business ones.</p><p>From the <a href="https://www.inma.org/blogs/reader-revenue/post.cfm/new-research-polarising-news-is-a-trap-for-reader-funded-media" rel="noreferrer">equally wise Greg Piechota</a>:</p><blockquote> <p>Value-destroying content: Professor Shunyao Yan of Santa Clara University and Professor Klaus Miller of HEC Paris analysed data from “a major European news Web site” (62,000+ articles, 40 weeks of user-level clickstreams and conversions), used LLMs to score content, and isolated causal effects.<br /> They found that polarising, and especially emotionally charged, “us-vs-them” content, increased time spent but reduced the likelihood of subscribing, particularly during politically charged moments like elections.</p> </blockquote> <p>Another truism of audience work: engagement on its own is not a unalloyed good. The type and quality of that engagement matters.</p><p>There's a useful infographic in Greg's piece:</p><figure class="kg-card kg-image-card"><img src="https://onemanandhisblog.com/content/images/2026/01/Readers_First_JAN26_Greg_Subscription_Playbook-760-3.jpg" class="kg-image" alt="Infographic titled “Polarising news: More attention, fewer subs”. It explains that emotional and political polarisation increases clicks and time spent, but reduces trust and willingness to subscribe, especially for emotionally charged political stories." loading="lazy" width="760" height="428" srcset="https://onemanandhisblog.com/content/images/size/w600/2026/01/Readers_First_JAN26_Greg_Subscription_Playbook-760-3.jpg 600w, https://onemanandhisblog.com/content/images/2026/01/Readers_First_JAN26_Greg_Subscription_Playbook-760-3.jpg 760w" /></figure><p>Food for both strategic and social thought…</p>

Wow. I only just noticed the appearance controls in Ghost’s ActivityPub reader. Lovely stuff.

<p>In between marking, tax return work and planning a shift in direction for some of my work, I've been trying to deepen my knowledge of AI and how it can fit into workflows, practically and without undermining our reader relationships. This matters. AI is here to stay, we can't uninvent it, so we need to figure how and where it can be useful. But sometimes, the focus on the technology can blind us to the true opportunity of the moment. </p><p>Chris Sutcliffe, co-founder of <em>Media Voices</em>, managed to perfectly sum up the <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/posts/chrismsutcliffe_been-disappointed-by-how-few-businesses-activity-7414263650049302528--0Oh?utm_source=share&amp;utm_medium=member_desktop&amp;rcm=ACoAAAABidUB7eTk_5oOh44CiZGCkcXNeP-ZjzA" rel="noreferrer">opportunity being missed by so many publishers</a> right now:</p><blockquote>Trust in news producers is still low across the board. Now is the perfect time for news businesses to shout about how they're still doing shoe leather journalism, writing it all up manually, and how that shows how much they value their audiences. It's a selling point! 'We value you enough to take the time to do this properly, so please value us enough to pay for it'.</blockquote><figure class="kg-card kg-image-card"><img src="https://media.tenor.com/j3956YuKDZsAAAAC/look-what.gif" class="kg-image" alt="" loading="lazy" width="498" height="280" /></figure><p>That this opportunity is being squandered baffles me. AI is neither expensive nor hard to use. It is borderline ubiquitous, as the tech companies force it down users' gullets, like <em>foie gras</em> producers force-feeding geese. So, using it gives you no competitive edge on its own. Indeed, by using AI to generate content, all you're doing is training your readers to think of your content as something generic that anyone can produce.</p><p>Just as the Internet, blogging and social media unleashed a torrent of content unlike any humanity had seen before, AI will turn that torrent into a Tsunami. Why the hell would you join in? </p><p>This is the point I was making with the “<a href="https://onemanandhisblog.com/2026/01/navigating-the-shifting-sands-of-audience-strategy/" rel="noreferrer">reverse centaur</a>” reference last week. Use AI to enhance your USP, not to replace it. Be a centaur, not a reverse centaur. And, for most journalistic publishers, your people, their research, their adherence to facts and their writing skills remain what sets you apart from the endless sea of content out there. </p><p>Other industries are grasping this point. </p><h2 id="content-for-the-content-god-slop-for-the-slop-throne">Content for the content god, slop for the slop throne</h2><p>If I might make a slightly offbeat point of comparison (but one Chris will probably appreciate), Games Workshop – you know, the Warhammer people – get this. At their results a couple of weeks ago, <a href="https://www.ft.com/content/82bf41f4-7020-4c41-9ca6-f5b7390e9198" rel="noreferrer">the massive miniature company announced this</a>:</p><blockquote> <p>Games Workshop has banned its employees from using AI in its content or designs as the fantasy games specialist seeks to protect the intellectual property that has propelled its rise to the FTSE 100.<br /> The group, which makes games and miniatures based around the tabletop fantasy Warhammer, said on Tuesday it was taking a “very cautious” approach to the technology and had set an internal policy limiting its use.<br /> Kevin Rountree, chief executive, said he was not an artificial intelligence expert but added: “We do have a few senior managers that are: none are that excited about it yet.”</p> </blockquote> <p>What that company understands is that a company whose business is based around <em>creativity</em> – building, painting, kitbashing models – tends to attract people who appreciate <em>creativity</em>. And those people are unlikely to value raw materials generated by AI in the way that they do the work of human creators. </p><p>The <em>FT</em> <a href="https://www.ft.com/content/82bf41f4-7020-4c41-9ca6-f5b7390e9198?commentID=639dba84-9065-46b0-97ca-18d597af2f92" rel="noreferrer">comments section gets it</a>, too:</p><blockquote>This is surely the way of the future: firms that value human creativity will command a premium over slop factories. Well done GW and may more firms make similar proclamations.</blockquote><p><a href="https://www.ft.com/content/82bf41f4-7020-4c41-9ca6-f5b7390e9198?commentID=c3d635df-5c8c-4cd7-8f92-7975e3a2c7cf" rel="noreferrer">And</a>:</p><blockquote>The God Emperor of Mankind abhorred AI, who are we to disagree? Jokes aside and given the strong feelings among GW’s fanbase on this issue, this feels like an eminently sensible move, and a bold one.</blockquote><p>God bless you, fellow <em>FT</em>-reading geek. </p><h2 id="the-human-as-competitive-differentiator">The human as competitive differentiator</h2><p>Now, apply that back to journalism. </p><p>AI is already so ubiquitous there are, for examples, whole subreddits devoted to figuring out <a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/isthisAI/" rel="noreferrer">if things are AI</a>. </p> <blockquote class="reddit-embed-bq" style="height:500px"><a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/isthisAI/comments/1qnjxgi/fiances_coworker_showed_her_this_photo_of_her/">Fiance's coworker showed her this photo of her boyfriend. We think she is getting scammed.</a><br /> by<a href="https://www.reddit.com/user/ColeIsRegular/">u/ColeIsRegular</a> in<a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/isthisAI/">isthisAI</a></blockquote><script async charset="UTF-8"></script> <p>(I'm considering setting “two hours browsing this subreddit” as a task for students on a new module next year, as the verification skills on show are often truly impressive.)</p><p>By generating your core content with AI, you start to erode your relationship with your audience. It's a truism of audience strategy work that people form relationships with people, not with brands. So, for example, Warhammer or <em>The Rest Is History</em> are brands, which are social objects that people gather around to form relationships with each other. But the presenters of the podcast are real people that audiences form parasocial relationships with. In the case of Warhammer, the social relationships (as I've discovered, having been dragged back into the hobby by my younger daughter) are with fellow players, and the shop staff who run events and give lessons. </p><figure class="kg-card kg-image-card kg-card-hascaption"><img src="https://onemanandhisblog.com/content/images/2026/01/IMG_6251.jpeg" class="kg-image" alt="A young girl assembles a free Citadel miniature of the month at a Warhammer shop in Worthing" loading="lazy" width="2000" height="996" srcset="https://onemanandhisblog.com/content/images/size/w600/2026/01/IMG_6251.jpeg 600w, https://onemanandhisblog.com/content/images/size/w1000/2026/01/IMG_6251.jpeg 1000w, https://onemanandhisblog.com/content/images/size/w1600/2026/01/IMG_6251.jpeg 1600w, https://onemanandhisblog.com/content/images/size/w2400/2026/01/IMG_6251.jpeg 2400w" /><figcaption><span style="white-space:pre-wrap">My younger daughter assembling a free miniature in our local Warhammer shop.</span></figcaption></figure><p>By generating journalistic copy with AI, you are breaking the core bond between creator and audience. You're turning your core product into a commodity. Now, for a while people might treat your (lessened) brand as a social object, and gather around it as a community. But the bonds between each other will be stronger than those between the community and the brand. And they can head off and do their own thing, without you. </p><p>And then your audience is gone. </p><h2 id="the-climate-change-comparison">The Climate Change comparison</h2><p>In many ways, I see publishers' rush into AI generate content as being like tech companies and their rush into AI technology. LLMs and diffusion models are hungry for energy and water, and are making it far less likely that the tech giants will <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2025-corporate-climate-broken-promises/" rel="noreferrer">hit their climate goals</a>. </p><p>Similarly, ust as the publishing industry is waking up again to the value of community and audience, we're in danger of squandering the good work done and the relationships we're building on the altar of AI. We're so scared of screwing up another technology transition, that we're screwing up our audience relationships instead. </p><p>That's not to say that we should ignore AI. That would be equally stupid. But we need to be smarter about where it delivers value, and where we can safely find efficiencies with it. And, having had a frustrating few days trying to work some new AI tools into my own workflows, that might take more work than people are prepared for. </p>

A round-up of stories to inform your work - and a pledge to stay reverse centaur-free. Really.

What caught your eye and kept you reading in 2025?

Face it: nobody's going to be selling prints of ChatGPT's best cartoons…

... and other things I learned today about Ghost Explore

A comprehensive look at Mastodon, Bluesky, and the growing ecosystem of open, interoperable social networks.

Insights into audience development, newsletter strategy, and just how much bigger than us Facebook is.

Can you really “cheat” the LinkedIn algorithm by hiding links in comments? Or is there something else at work?