Why I Don't Trust Tech Journalists Selling Phones To Your Six-Year-Old

Taylor Lorenz thought she could have her cake and eat it, too. The tech journalist built her career attacking others for ethical lapses, then got caught promoting phones designed for children as young as six while opposing school phone bans. When called out, she didn't apologize. She threatened lawsuits, called critics "liars," and played victim so hard it deserved its own Oscar category.

But this isn't just about one journalist's ethical lapses. This is a masterclass in how media figures exploit parental concerns for profit—and a warning for every mother, woman in business, and brand about the manipulation tactics targeting your family and your trust.

This tweet shows Lorenz denying she's "selling phones" alongside screenshots of her promotional video saying she's "proud to partner with Bark Phone" for kids ages 6-15.

When “Child Safety” Becomes a Sales Pitch

In August 2025, Lorenz posted a TikTok video promoting the Bark Phone, complete with "#ad" tags and "Paid Partnership" labels. She described herself as "proud to partner" with the company while highlighting features designed to give kids "independence" and keep them "safe."

The contradiction was impossible to ignore. Lorenz has built recent credibility opposing school phone bans, arguing they harm children's safety. Now she's promoting surveillance phones designed for elementary school children. When Rachel Cohen Booth, a Vox journalist, pointed out the obvious conflict of interest, all hell broke loose.

Vox journalist Rachel Cohen Booth pointing out the conflict of interest between covering tech safety and promoting phones to young children.

Rachel Cohen Booth, a journalist at Vox, asked the obvious question: "A tech journalist who covers online safety is doing paid ads for phones targeted at young children. This seems like a massive conflict of interest."

Simple observation. Basic journalism ethics. But Lorenz's response revealed everything you need to know about how some media figures operate when accountability comes knocking.

The Word Games That Should Alarm Every Parent

Instead of acknowledging the ethics concern, Lorenz went into full damage control. She denied being paid, shared an email from Bark confirming no direct payment, and claimed she was doing "unpaid promo" for her portfolio.

Here's the red flag every mother should recognize: She admitted doing "free promo work to build her portfolio for pitching other brands." Translation? She's using parental concerns about children's safety as her marketing testing ground to land future deals.

The cognitive dissonance is stunning. She labeled content with "#ad" and "Paid Partnership" while claiming it wasn't advertising. You cannot market something as an advertisement while denying it's promotional content.

Lorenz's thread sharing Bark's confirmation email and explaining her "free promo" strategy.

The Ethics Violation That Matters

What makes this situation particularly problematic is Lorenz's funding source. She's not just any content creator—she's a "Reporter in Residence" funded by the Omidyar Network, which has strict ethics policies requiring disclosure of even potential conflicts of interest.

According to Omidyar's published guidelines, staff and contractors cannot engage in activities where personal gain conflicts with the organization's mission. Even perceived conflicts must be disclosed to leadership. Lorenz appears to have violated every requirement.

She promoted a tech company's product while being funded to report on tech policy. She failed to disclose obvious conflicts to her employer. She used advertising labels while claiming no advertising relationship existed. When questioned, she removed transparency measures instead of adding more disclosure.

This wasn't an oversight—it was systematic deception designed to maintain credibility while benefiting from brand partnerships.

Why This Manipulation Tactic Should Terrify You

I recognize this playbook because I've been targeted by it. In 2020, Lorenz wrote a New York Times piece that destroyed my talent management company by framing standard industry practices as "exploitation." What she didn't disclose? She was represented by the competing talent agency that poached my clients after her article ran.

The pattern is clear: attack others for practices you engage in yourself, then play victim when called out. She destroyed my business for advising creators to do promotional work to build portfolios—the exact same practice she now admits to doing.

Lorenz seeking legal help to stop Booth from "spreading lies" about her promotional content.

When journalists pressed her on ethics violations, she escalated to legal threats. She called critics "Nazis" for pointing out conflicts of interest. She used personal tragedy to deflect professional accountability questions.

Booth's measured response with screenshots proving every claim she made using Lorenz's own content.

This is the crybully playbook: Do something problematic, deny everything when caught, call critics liars, threaten lawsuits when denial fails, then play victim throughout.

What Every Mother Needs to Understand About Media Manipulation

Here's what every woman raising children should understand: media figures like Lorenz don't elevate family safety—they exploit parental fears for personal gain. When her name gets attached to child safety advocacy, it becomes immediately suspect because she has a documented pattern of ethical violations and accountability avoidance.

The warning for mothers: Be extremely wary of taking parenting advice from someone who promotes surveillance technology for children while having no children herself. Lorenz is essentially beta-testing products designed for family situations she's never experienced. When someone weaponizes child safety rhetoric for personal gain, as she did when she twisted my attempt to protect a 14-year-old girl into an attack against me, they're not protecting children. They're exploiting parental fears.

For women building careers: The professional victim industrial complex particularly targets women establishing credibility in competitive industries. These figures attack others while violating the standards they demand, then cry harassment when people fight back. She can destroy your reputation one day depending on her mood or what she has to gain.

How Mothers Can Spot the Manipulation

The parenting angle deserves special attention. Lorenz promotes products for children while having zero experience raising kids. She evaluates surveillance phones designed for six-year-olds as a childless adult, then positions herself as qualified to advise parents about family digital safety.

This isn't just inappropriate, it's potentially dangerous. When someone without children promotes parental control technology while opposing school phone policies many parents support, they're inserting themselves into complex family decisions they don't understand.

Red flags for mothers: Anyone promoting parenting products without being a parent, "experts" who weaponize child safety language for personal gain, and advocates whose positions mysteriously align with their financial interests. Trust your instincts over influencer recommendations when your children's wellbeing is involved.

Why This Situation Is So Bad

Here's what makes this controversy particularly damaging: either way you analyze it, the outcome is terrible for parents trying to make informed decisions.

Scenario one: Bark Phone could actually be a helpful tool for protecting children online. I have zero experience with their product, so I can't evaluate its effectiveness. But now, thanks to Lorenz's ethical violations and conflicts of interest, how can any parent trust the advocacy around it? When your "child safety expert" is secretly promoting products while opposing school policies, their credibility evaporates. A potentially useful safety tool gets tainted by association with questionable journalism.

Scenario two: Bark Phone could be exactly what concerned parents should worry about—a tech company collecting massive amounts of data on children as young as six. What are their security measures? What happens if this data gets in the wrong hands? And they're partnering with an advocate who opposes letting schools restrict phone access, potentially creating more opportunities for data collection.

Either way, parents lose. We either miss out on legitimate safety tools because we can't trust the people promoting them, or we're being manipulated into surveillance systems disguised as protection. When "child safety advocates" have undisclosed financial relationships with the companies they're promoting, how can any parent make an informed decision?

Your Defense Strategy Against Family-Targeted Manipulation

Recognize the warning signs immediately. When someone built their career attacking others suddenly faces legitimate criticism, watch their response. Do they acknowledge concerns and provide clarity? Or do they pivot to legal threats and victim narratives?

Document everything. Screenshots don't lie, and in an era of deleted posts and revised narratives, contemporaneous evidence protects you from gaslighting campaigns.

Most importantly, trust your maternal instincts over "expert" recommendations. If someone promoting products for your children has never raised kids themselves, that's not expertise—that's opportunism.

The Trust Problem That's Destroying Credibility

The media already struggles with trust, and figures like Lorenz make it worse for ethical journalists. Her systematic violations reflect poorly on the entire profession when credibility matters most.

According to recent polling, trust in journalism continues declining, particularly among women who feel manipulated by performative advocacy that prioritizes personal gain over genuine protection.

When someone positions themselves as protecting children while promoting surveillance technology to parents, weaponizes child safety rhetoric for profit, and attacks people for practices they engage in themselves, that's not journalism—that's fraud wrapped in victim narrative.

Trust Yourself Over the 'Experts'

Don't let them gaslight you about what you're seeing. When someone systematically violates professional ethics while demanding others follow rules they refuse to follow themselves, trust your own eyes. Screenshots don't lie, patterns matter, and accountability isn't harassment—it's the foundation of any functional system.

As mothers, you have an innate ability to detect threats to your children. That instinct doesn't disappear when the threat comes dressed as "expert advice" or "child safety advocacy." If something feels off about someone promoting products for your kids while having zero experience with children, trust that feeling.

Your maternal instincts are more reliable than any tech journalist's opinion about your family's digital boundaries. The professional victim playbook only works when people stop asking questions and start accepting excuses.

Keep asking questions. Keep demanding transparency. Your children's safety depends on it.

Ariadna Jacob exposes media manipulation tactics and crybully behavior patterns on her YouTube channel. For more breakdowns on how "experts" exploit their readers and weaponize victim narratives, subscribe for weekly breakdowns.