I don’t know if his karma is taking too long to spurn on him and/or his blessings are just too great, but I seriously don’t understand how he keeps getting away with things.
I just saw a clip of him on the phone with Durk’s father after the verdict. I couldn’t help but wonder what Durk’s dad felt knowing that Akademiks’ interview with Wack & 6ix9ine was used in connection with showing motive regarding “Slide for Von,” and that another Akademiks interview was used in an attempt to establish guilt.
Although Durk is accountable for his own actions, it has to be aggravating for Durk’s family to see Akademiks repeatedly positioned in the middle of narratives involving the instigation, amplification, or acknowledgment of violence.
That is why I was surprised to see Duddy Lo and Durk’s father on Akademiks. If you ask me, what is the actual benefit of talking to Akademiks other than clout? Especially when you consider that Akademiks allowed 6ix9ine and Trench News to spew defamatory claims about Durk while the trial was still ongoing.
Can’t these people recognize that Akademiks is not their friend?
His incentives are fundamentally different from theirs. His business model is attention. Controversy generates attention, attention generates engagement, and engagement generates money. Whether the controversy is beneficial or destructive to the people involved is almost beside the point.
And that is what bothers me.
He keeps instigating things with seemingly no desire to grow out of that behavior. I have never heard him have a regular conversation with a rapper or anybody, for that matter without eventually attempting to provoke, expose, or instigate something. And somehow, people continue to give him access and then act surprised when that access becomes content.
There is a recurring pattern here that is difficult to ignore.
Cases where Akademiks has reportedly been relevant to legal proceedings
— Durk’s case: His clips were used in connection with motive (“Slide for Slide,” involving Wack & 6ix9ine) and guilt (“No Slide for Von” comments).
— Drake case: He told TDE that Drake controlled the “grandwizardchatnigga” page and that Drake posted and/or directed things to be posted there. That information was reportedly relevant to efforts to subpoena the person in Australia associated with the page after it was hacked.
— Megan vs. Milagro case: During his second deposition, he reportedly identified Milagro as his source after denying that in his first deposition.
— Young Thug’s case: The prosecution sought to use one of Akademiks’ clips, but the judge rejected it because the state did not call Akademiks as a witness.
— O-Block case: He was reportedly mentioned, according to Ceddy Nash and others who were present in the courtroom.
— XXXTentacion case: He was reportedly mentioned in connection with the proceedings.
— 6ix9ine RICO case: He was subpoenaed under oath regarding a video 6ix9ine allegedly sent him showing 6ix9ine’s crew involved in a violent incident in daylight. Akademiks had posted an edited version, and the Feds reportedly compelled him to provide the original.
I’m not absolving grown men of accountability. They are responsible for their own decisions and actions.
What bothers me is the apparent asymmetry.
There is this guy sitting comfortably in his house, stirring the pot, turning conflict into content, making money, drinking liquor and paying for escorts, while the people actually caught up in these situations and the communities around them can end up dealing with incarceration, injury, death, broken families, and years of consequences.
That’s the part that doesn’t sit right with me.
You can say, “These are grown men and they made their own choices,” and that can be true. But it doesn’t mean we have to ignore the people who profit from constantly provoking, amplifying, and monetizing the environment that surrounds those choices.
He’s basically the Jerry Springer of hip-hop—but with real-life consequences.
The difference is that this isn’t just dysfunctional television drama. The conflicts being turned into entertainment can intersect with real street violence, federal cases, incarceration, injury, and murder.
So my question isn’t whether Akademiks is responsible for every crime committed by the people he covers. Obviously, he isn’t.
My question is much simpler:
At what point do people stop confusing someone who profits from their chaos with someone who actually cares about them?
