Carleigh Beriont is running for Congress, and if you know about her campaign, it’s definitely not for the same reason you’ve learned about other local politicians in recent years. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has become a household name in part because of her ability to use social media and livestreams to talk to people directly. Zohran Mamdani hasn’t even won an election yet, but is already a national political figure thanks in part to his fluency on TikTok.

Beriont, on the other hand, is not using social media at all. She’s been on Twitter, Linkedin, and Facebook in the past, but has not been on social media since 2020 after getting frustrated with the kind of discussions and divisiveness she saw there.

Beriont is a former union organizer, a teacher, and vice chair of the local Select Board. Now, she is not only trying to win the Democratic primary for the New Hampshire District 1 congressional race, she has also made social media abstinence a part of her platform.

Eric Schildge, Beriont’s husband, reached out to me after reading my article about an Instagram account promoting Holocaust denial t-shirts, and explained that Beriont was promoting herself as an “anti-social Democrat” because she thinks “Democracy works better offline.”

According to Beriont’s campaign manager Carly Colby, Beriont raised over $232,000 from over 2,300 individual donors. Over 250 of these individuals donated in response to receiving a message specifically about Carleigh not using social media.

I called Beriont to find out why she thinks it’s possible to win an election without social media.

This interview has been edited for clarity and length.

404 Media: Why did you get off social media?
Carleigh Beriont: I'm a millennial, so I grew up like when Facebook required the .edu and it was a great way to connect with new classmates going into college and old friends when you had moved away from where you grew up, which I did. During the height of the Black Lives Matter protests [in 2020], there were a number of conversations that I saw happening on my feed where one relative would post something and a friend from school would post something, and they'd be yelling at each other, and I was like, these people don't even know each other and they're fighting online. It just felt like the experience was getting more and more degraded. It was more and more ads, more and more videos, less and less communication between people, and I signed off because I think that it was making it hard for me as an academic and a parent and someone who was very busy, to think clearly.

I was always worried about what I was going to say or that people were going to jump all over me, and I thought that was unhealthy. When I ran for office the first time in New Hampshire, I wasn't sure I'd be able to do it without social media. But I also realized that talking to people on the phone and meeting them at their doors or speaking in libraries, people weren't as angry or as opposed to one another as I'd been led to believe based on social media. And so I started to think, well, what if we don't use social media running for Congress? I mean, you've seen this week how bad things have gotten [Editor’s note: this interview took place the week Charlie Kirk was shot], and I just don't think that democracy works well online. We're seeing Donald Trump try to force the sale of Tiktok to one of his biggest supporters’ children. We're seeing Mark Zuckerberg and Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos sitting in the front row of Trump's inauguration. They had better seats than Greg Abbott did, and these people are making billions of dollars off of us, and they are destroying our democracy in the process. I don't want to be a part of it. So when I think of what can I do, What can I change, we decided not to use social media during the campaign because we don't want to live in a world where that is where our politics take place, and how they're outsourced, because we don't think that it's productive for democracy.

404 Media: I told my colleagues I was doing this interview and one of them joked that the headline for the story could be: “Can You Win an Election Without Telling Anyone You’re Running?” I hate social media also but I think I have to use it to promote our articles. Don’t you think it’s a necessary evil for you as well?
Beriont: It's so funny. I wish I could get a shirt that was like, “necessary evil?”. I do think that it's evil. I don't know that it's necessary. This campaign is a test for that. It's one thing for people who are trying to promote themselves or trying to sell things to use social media. I think it's another for our political leaders who are in a position where they should be holding corporations and the people who run them, like Mark Zuckerberg, responsible for their actions.

We're watching how the government is literally using that to surveil us and fire people for things that they're allegedly posting that are inappropriate about Charlie Kirk's assassination and things like that. It's incredibly risky for people to be using social media who are trying to preach a message of connection and community and democracy and equality and respect and dignity. I am not seeing those things on social media. Most of what people see, I believe a lot of it is AI. I believe a lot of it is an attempt to sell you something. I believe little of it is things that your friends and family are using as a way to actually connect. In New Hampshire, we've seen local police departments shut down the comment sections on their Facebook. We see political candidates deleting things that they don't like or comments that are negative. And so I think it just skews our sense of what's real and what's possible right now. And so that's why we're not using it.

Instead, we're doing something I'm calling district dialogs. As a facilitator and teacher, I'm happy to involve myself in messy, awkward conversations with people. I love teaching people how to stay in conversations and hold spaces. And so we're asking people what they wish politicians understood better. And we've had about 40 of these conversations throughout the district, and in almost every one we're hearing the same things from people who are exhausted by social media. They go on to check something, and two hours later they realize that they've lost two hours of their life, or they tried to find a post from a candidate, and instead, they got sucked into like some type of Nazi propaganda. And it's just such a shitty way to run a communication system and to run a country, and I think that we've done too much outsourcing to it, so it needs to stop.

404 Media: How are you reaching people without social media?
Beriont: We've been meeting in like public libraries and school cafeterias and church basements and driveways and living rooms, and asking people to bring some of their friends, or if it's a local democratic committee or some type of organization, asking them to invite people, and just sitting around and asking one another what we think we need to be doing right now. What people are saying after those meetings is they're so grateful that they had a chance to hear other people and to be heard, and they don't feel alone, and social media makes them feel alone. It makes them feel crazy, it makes them feel overwhelmed. And actually sitting and talking with the people in your community about what you can do to make it better is, I think, an antidote for a lot of that feeling of overwhelm and disassociation that people have right now.

I ask people what they think about my position on social media, and the number of people, especially millennials, say “I wish I could throw my phone out the window.” It seems to be really the political consultants and people who work in politics who are the most opposed to this idea, in part, because, for a lot of people, it's a low lift way to get involved. I think we have to ask ourselves whether it's actually an effective way of making a difference right now. I don't believe that that's the case in 2025.

404 Media: Have you done any polling or do you have any data that shows that this strategy is working?
Beriont: We haven't done any polling yet. It's tricky because there's six other people in this primary right now, one of the things that I think has been differentiating me is my willingness to sit and have a conversation. So a lot of politicians are operating the way that they have been trained to, which is to show up at a place, get a picture for Instagram or Facebook or Twitter, and then leave and people notice and are frustrated with that because they don't feel like they're actually getting an opportunity to talk with the people that want to represent them. As someone who has been on the other side of that, I decided to run because I was really frustrated with all of these monologs and these directed cameras telling me how to think or how to feel or how to vote or why, you know, the sense of reality that I had was wrong. And I think people really want more dialogue right now. They want more real, authentic exchanges. And I think they deserve that, and I think that that needs to be the foundation for democratic politics going forward.

404 Media: When I was in the VICE union there was an organizer with Writers Guild of America East who told us that support for the union on social media doesn’t mean anything, and can be counter productive because it makes people feel like they’re supporting the union without actually supporting it. Is your no social media approach to campaigning influenced by your experience in union organizing?Beriont: Yeah, absolutely. I was one of the people that helped organize the graduate student union at Harvard with the UAW. I think you're absolutely right about that. I also think that local politics has been great for this, because it's nonpartisan. And one of the things that I've realized is that in order to get things done in a space that is politically quite divided, you can't just be posting shit about your opponents the minute you don't get your way. You need to really build relationships and recognize that you're not always going to get your way, and this is true in a negotiation. When you show up to bargain at a table, you don't assume that you're going to get every single one of the things that you ask for, but you assume that people meet you in good faith and you'll be able to move forward. And I think that a lot of the relationship building and the coalition building that we need right now is lacking at the national level. We're seeing people, pouring fuel on partisan fires and preaching to the choirs, and they're doing that to raise more money, and it's not winning over anybody, and it's not helping to de-escalate the situation that we're in right now. And I think that it's frankly making us a lot less safe, because instead of actually holding social media corporations accountable for what they're posting online, which they could be doing, they're choosing not to do that.

404 Media: Do you think a no social media strategy can work on a national level?
Beriont: Absolutely. I think it's well suited to New Hampshire because this is a state that is very used to hands on democracy. Our State House has 400 state reps in it, and we used to have the first primary in the nation. So most people in New Hampshire who are politically active are used to interacting with political candidates and politicians and getting to know them quite well, and expect that from their politicians. This is a state where the majority of politicians who run, if they're posting anything on Facebook, they're probably going to get like, two or three likes. And it just doesn't seem to be the most effective way to organize in a place like this. But I also think that, at the very least, we should be asking our politicians to get offline and stop exacerbating tensions on platforms that are only benefiting billionaires. They're buying our politicians. They're buying our politics. And it needs to stop somewhere. So it should probably start with the people who are attempting to be our leaders.

404 Media

2025-09-08 17:16:15

Instagram Account Promotes Holocaust Denial T-Shirts to 400,000 Followers

An Instagram account with almost 400,000 followers is promoting racist and antisemitic t-shirts, another sign that Meta is unable or unwilling to enforce its own policies against hate speech. 404 Media flagged the account to Meta as well as specific racist posts that violate its hate speech policies, but Meta didn’t remove the account and the vast majority of its racist posts.

The account posts a variety of memes that cover a wide range of topics, many of which are not hate speech and would not violate Meta’s policies, like the pizzagate conspiracy, 9/11, Jeffery Epstein, and criticism of Israel and mainstream news outlets like CNN and Fox News. If a user were to pick a post at random they might not even immediately identify the account as right-wing or extremist. For example, some memes posted by the account and shirts sold by the brand it promotes include messages criticizing Israel, the pro-Israel lobbying group AIPAC, and general distrust of the government.

Other memes and shirts promoted by the account might confuse the average internet user, but people who are fluent in extremist online culture will clearly recognize them as antisemitic. For example, seemingly one of the more popular designs promoted by the channel is of a simple line drawing of hands clasping and the text “Early life.” On the store page for this design, which comes on t-shirts for $27.99, mugs for $15, and hoodies for $49.99, the description says: “A totally normal design encouraging you to wash your hands — definitely just about hygiene. Nothing symbolic here. Just good, clean habits… taught very early in life.”

“Early life” refers to a common section of biographical Wikipedia articles that would state whether the person is Jewish. As Know Your Meme explains, this is a “dog-whistle meme” often used to spread antisemitic sentiments. The clasping hands are of the antisemitic drawing of the “happy merchant.”

Another cryptic design promoted by the Instagram account is of a juice box with the text “notice the juice” and several seemingly random figures like “109% juice” and “available in 271,000 stores.” These are also dog-whistles that other people who are swimming in hate speech would instantly understand. 109 refers to the claim that Jews have been expelled from that many countries, and 271,000 refers to the number Holocaust deniers often say is the “real” number of people who died in Nazi concentration camps. Another piece of text on the juice box is “6,000,000 artificial ingredients.”

Years of reporting on niche internet communities sadly means that I’m familiar with all of these symbols and figures, but many of this account’s posts on Instagram are far less subtle and require no special knowledge to understand it’s hateful. A post on August 27, for example, shows a meme of actor William Dafoe holding the diary of Anne Frank with a subtitle saying “you know, I’m something of a fiction critic myself.” Another design promoted on Instagram shows a man wearing a shirt with the text “don’t be a” and a picture of a bundle of sticks, also known in Middle English as a “fagot.”

Instagram’s Community Standards on “hateful conduct” tells users to not post “Harmful stereotypes [...] holocaust denial,” or “Content that describes or negatively targets people with slurs.”

Last year, Meta concluded an embarrassing and agonizing charade about its Holocaust denial policy. An Instagram user posted a Squidward-themed Holocaust denial meme. “Upon initial review, Meta left this content up,” the company said. Users kept flagging the post as hate speech and Facebook moderators kept assessing it as not violating Instagram policies. Users appealed this decision, which was picked up by Meta’s Oversight Board, a kind of “supreme court” for Meta’s moderation decisions. Upon further review, it determined the post did in fact violate its hate speech policy. The entire ordeal for removing the antisemitic Squidward meme took four years.

It’s an insane process but I’m belaboring the point because while some of these shirts and posts might not quite cross the line, even Meta’s top sham court has made it extremely clear that this account violates its policies. Instagram just doesn’t take action against it even after hundreds of posts and amassing a following of 400,000 people. It’s also just one account I decided to cover today because it appeared to have monetized this content effectively, but Instagram served it to me as one of many racist posts I see daily.

I sent Instagram the account promoting these shirts as well as several specific posts. Instagram only removed a couple of those specific posts, like the one calling Anne Frank’s book fiction. Instagram did not remove a post promoting the “early life” shirt. It also didn’t remove a shirt with an image of Michael Jackson and the text “(((They))) don’t really care about us.” Putting triple parentheses around “they” is an antisemitic symbol used to refer to Jews. “The media, Hollywood, the machine – they made hima a joke, a monster a meme. All because he spoke out about the ones you’re not allowed to name,” the text accompanying the post said.

The t-shirt problem here is not unique to Instagram. On August 26 The Verge wrote a good piece about a different antisemitic shirt that was sold in a TikTok Shop, Amazon, and other online marketplaces. The piece correctly points out that the rise of print-on-demand and drop-shipping has created incentives for people, many of whom don’t live in the U.S. and are not invested in any political outcomes here, to sell any image or text that is popular. This is why we see a lot of tiny ecommerce shops pivot from “#1 Grandpa” shirt one day to MAGA hats the next. They just sell whatever appears to be trending and often lift images from other sites without permission.

The Instagram account promoting the juice box shirt is a little more involved than that. For one, as far as I can tell the designs are unique and originate on that account and the online store it promotes. Second, whoever is making these designs is clearly fluent in the type of hate speech they are monetizing. Finally, as The Verge article points out, these print-on-demand shirts are easy to set up so it’s not always clear if the shirts or hats these stores are offering are ever really produced. That is not the case with the company behind the juice box shirt, which shares pictures of customers who bought its stuff and tags them on Instagram.

There are a few other juice box designs on the site, but the one I described above was removed sometime between May and August, before I reached out for comment. However, the design has since been swallowed up by this print-on-demand ecommerce machine, and is now available to buy from various sellers on Walmart, Amazon, and dozens of other online stores.

I kept track of this Instagram account and store because it was particularly disgusting and because it found a way to monetize hate speech on Instagram. I decided to write about it today because The Verge story reminded me that while this practice is common, it’s very, very bad. But the reality is that this is just one of countless such accounts on Instagram. Unless Meta changes its enforcement methods I could write one of these every day until I die. That wouldn’t be much of a life for me and not very interesting for you. We have become desensitized to the blatant dehumanization of entire groups online precisely because Instagram is putting it in front of our faces all the time. Occasionally, something snaps me out of this delirium and for a moment I can clearly see how bad this flood of hate speech is for all of us before I drown in it again.

TikTok Shop, Amazon, and other marketplaces hosted antisemitic T-shirts

The offensive T-shirts for sale on TikTok Shop and Amazon are upsetting. But they exemplify many of the problems with online shopping today.

^{Mia Sato (The Verge)}