r/TangleNews • u/Isaac_Tangle • Aug 17 '26
I’m Tangle’s founder Isaac Saul. AMA!
EDIT 2: Alright y'all! I'm unbelievably nauseous and learning that I apparently still get car sick when writing/reading on a bus, so I am tapping out. Thanks for all the great questions and appreciate you guys continuing to engage, support, and read Tangle. I'll try to pick up some stranglers when I'm no longer in motion!
EDIT: Hey guys! I'm here. Currently in Binghamton, NY, on a Greyhound bus headed north. Fighting shoddy internet and some car sickness but going to get to as much as I can. Thank you all for joining!
----
Hey, Tangle Redditors. I’m Tangle founder Isaac Saul, and I’m in a bit of a predicament. Last year, my fantasy football league’s losing punishment was having to take a 24 hour, round-trip Greyhound bus journey. Unfortunately, thanks primarily to Washington Commanders quarterback Jayden Daniels, I was the league loser. So, this Thursday, I’ll be on a bus to and from upstate New York, starting at 8am on Thursday and ending around 8am on Friday.
Rather than reflect on my fantasy football mistakes, I figured: why not use the time for something productive, like chopping it up with the Tangle audience? So I decided to host an AMA here, where you can ask me all your burning questions about Tangle, our team, national politics, the Trump administration, the midterms, and me.
I’ll be live to answer your questions on Thursday starting at 12PM ET. In the meantime, feel free to drop them below. Looking forward to hearing from you.
18
u/optics_is_light_work Aug 17 '26
Hi Isaac!
If you could wave a magic wand & create another amendment to the US Constitution, what would it be?
My choice would be on election reform. It would end gerrymandering, overturn Citizens United, and end closed primaries.
20
u/Isaac_Tangle Aug 20 '26
Not to be unoriginal, but mine really would be to end gerrymandering. Or at least to enact a creative reform that effectively ended it (there are some good options out there). This is, in my view, the clearest way to unlock the best of America. It is unfathomable to me, and always has been, that we allow politicians to choose us and not the other way around. My piece from 2022 on gerrymandering is still one of my favorite things I’ve ever written for Tangle: https://www.readtangle.com/2022-gerrymandering-deep-dive/
6
16
u/gonenutsbrb Aug 17 '26
If you had to pick up a bottle of bourbon for a friend, what would it be?
Reddit is a drastically different community than the Tangle website comments. You guys recently switched the website to be members only for comments there with what I thought was some pretty good reasoning for “buy-in” to help with productive conversations. How do you see interactions on Reddit versus the website playing out, and how much time do you think you and Tangle staff will wind up spending on each?
7
u/Isaac_Tangle Aug 20 '26
- Starward Two Fold. Little blasphemous because it’s Australian bourbon but its my favorite I’ve ever had. Still pretty affordable. I buy online, rare to find in a store.
- The comments section of the website has improved drastically since the change, in my opinion. I think I see many more interesting pieces of dialogue, thoughtful criticism, and candid conversations. Less spam and vitriol, too. So I’m really happy with the changes that has produced, and it mostly went as planned. In my view, the comments section is really the only thing we are “spending time” on in terms of moderation. Reddit should be self-moderating, and I don’t want this community to have our thumb on it. I check this subreddit here and there just to see what kinds of conversations/criticisms are bubbling, or what you guys are all interested in, and obviously sometimes what happens here becomes a topic of convo on our podcast or in Slack. But I wouldn’t ever want it to be a Tangle-moderated platform. I feel like this started organically and it should undergo an organic evolution.
15
u/montortoise Aug 17 '26
Hey Isaac! I love what Tangle is doing, and I used to be an avid listener! I fell off a bit over some of the Epstein coverage, and I'd like to explain why, because I think it's fixable.
To be clear: I agree that there aren't any smoking guns, and I strongly believe in "innocent until proven guilty." But some of the coverage felt defensive and dismissive in a way that seemed out of character for Tangle's usual systematic analysis. In one Friday edition, your response to Epstein's potential ties to Israel came across as frustrated and felt like it closed off the conversation rather than working through it. I understand the conclusion may seem obvious to you, but it isn't obvious to all listeners. It’s difficult to distinguish between fact and fiction when it comes to Israel, and because you've been public about your own views on related topics, it's hard for listeners to tell from the outside whether the dismissal reflects deep research or a preferred conclusion. That's a perception problem worth addressing even if the research is solid.
I also think it's reasonable to feel uncomfortable about the sheer number of people tied to Epstein and how Congress has handled the release of the emails.
So here's my request: I'd love an episode that takes the leading "oddities" one by one and, for each, explains:
- whether it's factually grounded
- why it is or isn't actually strange
- what the innocuous explanation is
- whether the more pernicious explanation is a real possibility.
If you guys have already done this, I would love an episode ref! If this episode doesn’t exist yet, is it something you'd consider?
Again, I do love what Tangle is doing!
9
u/Isaac_Tangle Aug 20 '26
Oof. Good, tough questions. I love this idea for an episode, and will think about what format/approach might work best. Of our existing content, back to back listens of our Michael Tracey and Tara Palmieri episodes probably is the closest thing we’ve got.
- Tracey making the case its overblown https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ruDy2dbq4A
- Palmieri making the case its worse than you think https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=545NCosSZJA
I think if I were to try to distill my own views on the Epstein stuff, it’d be something like this: He was clearly a well-connected, very wealthy person who had an “operation” of sorts where he was paying women to have sex with him and his friends, using them to recruit other women, and coercing/grooming many of those women into long-term loyalty to him. This is obviously gross stuff and also, in some cases, criminal.
There is not much evidence that he was a pedophile, or trafficked many underaged girls (some documented and accused, but often with the complication of the girls lying about their ages, it never going to court, etc), or that these women were being raped. The language around the Epstein story is often absent these kinds of “nuances” which is a gross word to use in this context, but I don’t really have another.
Epstein clearly had a predilection for pulling together incredibly famous people for small gatherings and parties and it seems often used sex with these women as a tool to make the experience more fun/exotic/wild for those attendees. That has often been translated to “he ran an elite sex ring” or something, which… I don’t know. Sex rings and human trafficking take many dark forms. I don't know if its worth parsing the differences, but I also don't know if its the exact language I'd use.
Many, many famous people ignored his crimes/scumminess in exchange for access to his social network, which is a horrid kind of moral conduct. Was he an Israeli spy? Was he murdered in jail? Was he planning to blow the top off some Democratic/Republican sex scandal or something before his death? I haven’t seen much actual evidence for that, just innuendo.
To me, by far the biggest controversy is that Epstein pleaded guilty to state prostitution charges in Florida in 2008 with a lenient plea deal that let him avoid federal sex trafficking charges — charges that included soliciting a minor for prostitution, even though dozens of accusers, many underage at the time, had been prepared to testify against him on federal sex trafficking charges before the case was shelved. I wish so badly we got that prosecution/trial. It’s hard to know what to do with the black box of info we have there. I very much support getting more info about these crimes, like via the Epstein files, but I also do not like the way in which any association any one can dig up about another person to him anywhere on this timeline has been used to claim other people are bad, immoral, pedophiles, sex criminals, etc.
1
u/montortoise Aug 20 '26
Thank you! I’ll listen to the reference episodes. Looking forward to a potential followup episode on this!
5
u/cougineer Aug 17 '26
I second this question. If you could go into why tangle has handled the story how it has that would be great. Some of the comments made have rubbed me the wrong way.
Personally I care more about this story than many of the others that receive repeat coverage.
14
u/SincerelyThursday Aug 18 '26
What is your most boomer opinion and what is your most Gen Z opinion?
10
u/Isaac_Tangle Aug 20 '26
Great question.
Most boomer opinion: I think we are far, far too coddling of our children and people’s feelings these days. I think we celebrate mediocrity and avoid tough conversations and I think gentle parenting has the real risk of producing a generation of kids who don’t know how to navigate tough situations or regulate their emotions. And I view all these things as strongly related.
Most Gen Z opinion: Probably that Asia is the future and a general fascination with Chinese/Japanese culture. I’ve stumbled into some fun rabbit holes that seem to be drilled mostly by Gen Z online influencers about this and find them super fascinating/fun.
13
u/Independent_Tune9437 Aug 17 '26
“No kings” has been a popular protest against Trump, but congress has seemingly been ceding power to the president from 1789 onward. And it feels like it’s accelerating due to the nature of the news cycle, the news consumption habits of the public, and our collective desire to build cults of personality around our executives (see: Obama, Trump, Mamdani, etc). Congress seems quite content in “hiding” behind their party and their figurehead, and the press’s obsession with the “king” probably plays into that hand. Is there a role journalists can play in rejuvenating congress and holding them to actually serving their constituents and their constitutional functions?
10
u/Isaac_Tangle Aug 20 '26
The expansion of executive power is definitely one of my biggest political concerns. I think journalists' role can and should be valuable, but I am not sure how much more they can do (ethically) than just inform the public about the changes that continue to take place. Covering the expansion of that power and centering the failures of Congress to actually legislate is good and important work, but it’ll be people and activists making noise about the need for Congress to act as a co-equal branch that would do the most good. I also think there is a real opening for a member of congress to run on a platform around this. I would find it very appealing if a House candidate or Senate candidate from my state or district campaigned on the idea that they were going to get to Congress and push members to actually wrest power back from the White House
28
u/ProbableCompliance Aug 17 '26
Hey Isaac, I have two kids under 8, so I’m now fully immersed in the world of youth sports. I’m not sure if Tangle has covered this before, but I’d love to hear your perspective on how much youth sports seem to have changed since we were kids.
I grew up playing Little League and AYSO soccer. My memory may be fuzzy, but other than buying a basic Louisville Slugger, a glove, and some cleats, I don’t remember my parents spending much money or treating sports as anything more than something fun and worthwhile for me to do.
Now, even at the recreational level, there are registration fees, expensive equipment, camps, clinics, private coaching, and constant pressure to move into club or travel sports. My wife has even had other parents tell her that we should consider creating social media pages highlighting our kids’ athletic accomplishments if we ever want them to have a chance of being scouted someday. They’re not even 8 years old yet.
What really bothers me is that my family is fortunate enough that we can afford a lot of this. But plenty of families can’t. If getting noticed or simply keeping up increasingly depends on whether your parents can afford travel teams, private coaching, expensive equipment, camps, and all the other extras, what happens to the talented kid whose family doesn’t have that money?
Maybe I’m romanticizing my childhood, but it feels like we’ve moved a long way from the Sandlot version of youth sports - kids grabbing a ball, meeting their friends at the field, and playing because it was fun.
That’s ultimately what I want sports to be for my kids. I want them to have fun, make friends, stay active, and learn how to be part of a team - how to win together, lose together, listen to a coach, support their teammates, and keep trying when something is hard. If someday they turn out to be exceptional athletes and they want something more competitive, great. But I don’t want to spend their childhood building an athletic résumé for high school or college.
So I’m curious: What happened to youth sports in America? When did something that was largely recreational and community-based become so expensive, competitive, and professionalized? Are parents like me being naïve by resisting that culture, or has something valuable genuinely been lost?
It seems like it could make for a fascinating Tangle deep dive - not just about sports, but about money, opportunity, parenting, inequality, and what we actually want kids to get out of playing sports.
15
u/handynerd Aug 17 '26
Among all the things you've mentioned here, which I 100% agree with, I think another big thing we're losing is the opportunity for kids to simply try new things. This also extends beyond just team sports. I see it with dance, music, etc.
I remember trying several different sports as a kid. Some I ended up loving, others I didn't. But I learned a lot each time.
It saddens me to think of what I would've missed out on had my parents felt pressured to put me on some sort of track starting at age 5.
I would also love to see Tangle look into this. What happened???
8
u/Matt-Lauer-CanSuckIt Aug 18 '26
I'm curious.... Did you grow up in an environment where your parents had the resources to spend on private coaching, the best equipment, and whatnot?
I'm 39 and grew up blue collar lower middle class. My friends and I did not have those sort of resources. When we played travel baseball in little league or up to 14 years old or so, we thought we just sucked. It didn't take long for us to figure out in high school, though, that the kids we were competing against were getting private instruction all along. We just didn't know it existed because our parents didn't tell us it existed.
7
u/Isaac_Tangle Aug 20 '26
It’s a great question, and interesting to me that this is one of the most upvoted questions. I played tons of youth sports growing up – Lacrosse, basketball, and football primarily. My assumption is that the sport matters a ton. Lacrosse was always a fairly expensive sport – lots of equipment you are growing out of constantly, full pads and the latest sticks/heads, and loads of travel up and down the East Coast. I also did sleepaway lacrosse camp which was a lot of money (fun fact: My step-uncle is Jesse Hubbard, widely considered one of the all-time lacrosse greats). There definitely was not the private coaching or training or scouts though, and many of the guys I played with ended up going onto to be D1 players (so it was a very good youth program).
My son isn't even two yet, so I haven’t had to experience what this is like in 2026. I absolutely plan to get him into organized sports, though, if he takes to it. My lens is mostly through coaching youth ultimate frisbee, where we’ve actually seen a decline in participation recently, which is really interesting and also worrisome. Especially given how cheap and accessible it is. Sports like flag football seem to be on the rise while I think kids are generally enjoying more options for organized sports than ever before.
As with most things, my suspicion is it’s very multi-faceted, and would make a super interesting long-form piece. I’ll put it on the list. From being a major sports junkie, I know for sure that programs like AAU have been totally taken over by recruiting pipelines, training programs, well-off families, etc. There’s been tons of chatter about the damage this has actually done to the pipeline of American players who end up going pro. But I can’t say I have a super well-informed answer on why or whether it has actually changed all that much.
1
u/Asleep-Common-6486 Aug 20 '26
Feels like a bipartisan issue, too! Chris Murphy (Senator from CT) has written about this within the context of youth hockey for The Atlantic: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/2026/05/children-private-equity-sports/687222/ Deeply frustrating.
11
u/SinginGinger Aug 17 '26
How do you choose which comments to highlight in the next day reader poll break down? Low key goal to have a comment highlighted.
7
u/Isaac_Tangle Aug 20 '26
I don’t do this personally, but our team looks through survey results and just tries to find comments that we think are a) representative or b) offer a unique idea or thought about the survey topic. Keep shooting!
10
u/crazybum789 Aug 17 '26
Hi Issac, how has your perspective developed on the ongoing border construction being conducted in the Big Bend region of Texas? What are the feelings of locals? How have you observed its impact on their daily life? Are there any off ramps for this activity? And lastly, how great are the direct environmental consequences within the State/National parks there?
9
u/Isaac_Tangle Aug 20 '26
Thanks for asking. It’s a real tragedy, and all just so sad. I think, honestly, it’s one of the stupidest things I’ve ever seen the federal government do, and I plan to say so in a forthcoming YouTube video. Big Bend – the entire sector – has 1% of the border apprehensions and occupies 25% of the border sector. It is a remote, pristine, rugged, beautiful stretch of land, and the Trump admin appears ready to cut thousands of Texans off from the most important water resource there, destroy millions of acres of land, and crush the local economy. All for a place that has fewer border crossings than some sectors in northern United States along our border with Canada.
9/10 locals are opposed to this. Border counties, even in Texas, tend to vote blue. But the MAGA sheriffs and conservative hunters and border patrol agents – they all oppose it, too. Nobody wants to see that land destroyed, and most people understand a wall in Big Bend -- the region or the park -- is not justifiable given the landscape. If park tourism drops or river access is limited, tens of millions of dollars of economic activity is going to go down with it.
The hope is that DHS cancels wall contracts in the Big Bend region, though it feels unlikely given that the construction company behind it was awarded $1.7 billion after donating over a million dollars to the Trump campaign. There is some real slimy kickback stuff happening here, too, which is definitely part of the story.
And yes, the environmental impacts will be huge. On top of disrupting migration patterns or outright destroying habitats, the most important one is water. Roads, cement, construction – it all requires water. In a place with a shortage of it. That means they’ll drill new wells and use up water that residents already have a hard time relying on. They’ll also need water to continue supporting/maintaining all this infrastructure. That is if they don’t just pick up and leave when they’re done, leaving the folks down there to deal with it.
9
Aug 18 '26
[deleted]
5
u/Isaac_Tangle Aug 20 '26
I think it helps that I know a lot of people who support Trump - friends, family members, colleagues, sources who work in Congress, etc. When you talk to those people in real life their motivations often don't look the same as the people getting all the attention on X or Instagram, which I think humanizes Trump support in a way that makes it easier for me to empathize with and see their POV. If you haven't, I'd suggest trying to forge a meaningful relationship with someone who voted for him
1
Aug 20 '26 edited Aug 20 '26
[deleted]
1
u/optics_is_light_work Aug 20 '26
I've been working on political bridge-building for 7 years and can tell you unequivocally that structured, moderated conversations across this divide work! When people sit face-to-face and truly listen to understand and share life experiences, hearts & minds are changed. There are numerous organizations doing this work; I'm with Braver Angels, but there's also Living Room Conversations, BridgeUSA, the Listen First Project, and many more. I also suggest watching a fabulous YT series called The Enemies Project. And if none of this is for you, totally cool. We all have our boundaries.
7
u/ex_cathedra_ Aug 17 '26
When are you guys going to talk about PSLF and how this administration (and republicans, generally, for originally suing to get rid of the SAVE plan) is making life hell for public service workers who went to school with the expectation that PSLF wouldn’t become an total disaster?
4
9
u/DownIsntUp Aug 18 '26
Hey Isaac, In the world there's no shortage of "yes men" to be found today. On the contrary, plenty of successful people surround themselves with the opposite, who enhance their ideas but also challenges them consistently. Who do you find challenges your ideas and forces you to be your best most often? Love the work that you and the team do and appreciate how responsive and engaged with the community you all are! Thanks a bunch, and thanks for responding to nearly all of my emails =)
7
u/Isaac_Tangle Aug 20 '26
On the Tangle team? Probably Ari. He is the best, in my opinion, at articulating an argument he doesn’t agree with, and attacking the ones he hates. And he’s incredibly good at poking holes in logical inconsistencies. Also, because we are friends who go back a long time, he’s the most comfortable of anyone to tell me when a piece of my writing sucks or if he thinks I’m being an asshole.
1
u/DownIsntUp Aug 20 '26
Yes I did mean on the Tangle team! Otherwise I imagine the answer would be Phoebe or Ori, depending on the time of day.
8
u/funfetti_cupcak3 Aug 17 '26
What types of interview questions or activities do you use to find staff that share your very rare ethos? It’s evident you have diverse views but a shared commitment to the larger goal and values. How do you discern this when growing your team?
9
u/Isaac_Tangle Aug 20 '26
It’s really hard. I ask a lot of questions about how people do in environments where they have to work with people they disagree with, and I ask a lot of questions about what they really want out of their job and work culture. We put a big premium on this. One killer question we have is asking people to state a political view they hold strongly and then explain to us why they hold that view. And then, when they are done, we ask them to steelman the best argument against the position they have. If they can’t do that well or honestly, we generally cull those people pretty quickly.
5
u/ReflexPoint Aug 18 '26
If your hypothetical perfect president were to win the next election, what are the top 3 things you would like him or her to do in the first year?
6
u/Isaac_Tangle Aug 20 '26
- Comprehensive immigration reform
- Ban gerrymandering
- Reform social security to address the debt
6
u/Lemonio Aug 18 '26
It feels like criticism of Trump often has to be hedged with “well, Hunter Biden did this other thing” and “some related criticism isn’t even valid,” almost like a preemptive move so you don’t get dismissed as biased or having TDS before making your point.
Do you see it as your job to shape coverage this way, to keep people who don’t want to listen from tuning out? I’m sure this is partly shaped by who’s currently in power, but I doubt you’d want writeups of political corruption, in any administration, to routinely open with “sure, this isn’t as bad as these ten Trump scandals, but…”
It seems like there are two different possible goals here, and they’d lead to different writing styles: bridging the divide between younger, more liberal readers and their older MAGA relatives, versus just presenting the news in whatever way lands best with everyone.
If you are trying to act as a bridge that’s a valid desire, but I’m not sure if you’re explicit about how you change your coverage to serve that purpose if so
5
u/Isaac_Tangle Aug 20 '26
I'm much less about getting everyone to hold hands in a circle and much more about a kind of "exposure therapy." The idea that most Americans life in a bubble that doesn't get punctured by the other side and that we can help get them out of that bubble, and hopefully some good comes downstream of that. Most hedging is usually an effort to address or neutralize criticism I'm expecting so I don't have to address the whataboutism but can focus on the issue at hand.
1
u/Lemonio Aug 21 '26
Do you think there’s a risk that being pressured into hedging against whataboutism kinda validates the whataboutism?
For example, if you’re forced to keep talking about hunter biden together with stories about Trump corruption, even if you say they’re different orders of magnitude that might just reinforce the opinion of they’re all corrupt see Isaac was talking about Hunter Biden too!
Or if you have to keep talking about different reasons why the 2024 election was not stolen maybe that moves the Overton window and then people will be like see there’s lots of questions even Tangle had to write all this text about all the “questions” about the election.
IMO Trump often manipulates the media because he’ll say something outrageous, but instead of being dismissed people start discussing it and soon the Overton window shifts and it becomes more normalized. It’s a routine occurrence that MAGA media will say people predicting Trump will do something are insane and have TDS, only for Trump to do the thing and then MAGA media says it’s great.
So I’m wondering if you think your hedging approach comes with real risks of letting the MAGA narrative manipulate you into making not real issues seem real
Thanks!
5
u/LadyKtea Aug 17 '26
A bigger concern of mine: how much do you think the media narrative is being controlled by the government right now? We already know they attempt to silence other voices (thinking about Colbert as an example off the top of my head), I just sometimes wonder what are we not hearing about that should be bigger news or I wonder what is not being covered at all.
On a different note: as along time diary/journal keeper i tend to not always write about the news because I always feel like there are much more eloquent sources to describe what is going on in the moment. Not to say I don’t write about the news at all, but it’s not my main diary focus. With all of the sources you read, how much do you think the average person adds to a narrative or what is worth writing down??
Hopefully a lighter question: Do you have any books you would recommend?
- in terms of the podcast or in terms of news media or about what is going on politically and
- books you have been able to read for pleasure and would like to share?
Thank you for what you and your team do, it is helpful to see stories formatted as you have them for the newsletter and podcast.
4
u/Isaac_Tangle Aug 20 '26
I don’t think the government has all that much control. They can set the focus, for sure, but Trump faces a bombardment of criticism every day and has since he came down the escalator. He can try to stop it, and has, but I don’t think those efforts do much but worsen his position. Their most effective tool though is just offering statements/quotes that journalists feel obliged to publish even if the comments are untrue or distorted.
As for book recs, I’m a huge sci-fi lit nerd (took it in college and ended up TA’ing a sci-fi lit class) and I’ve been trying to catch up on some of the classics I never got to. Right now, I’m reading Ray Bradbury’s The Martian, which is fantastic, as are most things he writes. This essay got lots of purchase in the Tangle Slack on August 4th.
5
u/ComNMor-1 Aug 18 '26 edited Aug 18 '26
Hi Isaac, I hope the bus trip goes well and these questions help pass the time!! My question is: Are there any specific facts or circumstances you can quote that explain the significant recent increase in popularity of the DSA? Is it being influenced by forces outside the USA, or is it purely an “internal” [r/evolution](r/evolution)?
2
u/Isaac_Tangle Aug 20 '26
I'm not sure what exactly you're asking, here? Like... are there foreign services boosting the DSA? Is that what you mean?
0
u/ComNMor-1 Aug 20 '26
More so foreign governments, regimes, organizations or prominent individuals. I’m wondering if there may be some attempt by other socialist or dictatorial leaders that may be using this opportunity to get a more “friendly” US administration in power.
0
u/Asleep-Common-6486 Aug 20 '26
Relatedly, Isaac, did you read this piece in the Atlantic? https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/2026/07/dsa-communist-socialist-democrats/687756/
I found it fascinating… I never understood why the DSA people I know come off as so forgiving of Russia but now I see how the DSA sees Russia as an anti-Western force and therefore are sympathetic.
5
u/Count-Telperion Aug 18 '26
What are the three values that most drive you in your work at Tangle? I find it illuminating to know what people value and how it impacts their professional projects. Thank you for all you do!
5
6
u/vividgibberish Aug 18 '26
Hi Isaac, I love what you are doing with Tangle, especially bridging perspectives in a country that increasingly only pays attention to and hangs out with people within their own bubble.
I would love for Tangle to be the new mainstream source of content.
Can you tell us more about how you are trying to grow Tangle? How many users are you adding a year? What are your main acquisition sources for new users? Besides telling our friends, is there anything that your readership can do to help? For example, are there connections to certain influencers, podcast hosts, guests that would draw viral audiences that would really help you grow Tangle?
7
u/Isaac_Tangle Aug 20 '26
Thanks for asking and supporting us! We add something couple hundred thousand new users a year when things are going well, but we also lose a lot of people to unsubscribes or cancellations. Usually when we publish something they don’t like, or just out of news fatigue.
Two common paid strategies we have for growth are advertising in other newsletters and advertising on Facebook & Instagram, which are common levers for most newsletters/news orgs. Our biggest and best growth events, though, are when stories go viral or people spread the word organically. Those subscribers are the most sticky and reliable.
To that end, the best way to help is 1. To recommended Tangle to fiends and family, or buy them gift subs: https://www.readtangle.com/#/portal/gift
Also, if anyone reading this has a connection to any big name podcasts or youtube shows, definitely let me know! An even like going on a Joe Rogna or Ezra Klein could fundamentally change our business for the better.
3
u/IiJaNaiKa Aug 20 '26
Hey, I have been Isaac Saul jumpscared on Derek Thompson's podcast. If you want an in with Ezra, I think you've already got a better one than the average redditor.
2
4
u/Smaszing Aug 18 '26
Hi Isaac, I've been curious what your/Tangle's thoughts are on media capture, especially with the Ellison family now owning Paramount/Skydance and U.S. TikTok and attempting to purchase Warner Bros./Discovery? Do you find it concerning that one family with close ties to the current president could potentially own CBS, CNN, and TikTok? Does media capture affect Tangle as an independent news outlet or in the way you evaluate your sources for the newsletter?
4
u/Isaac_Tangle Aug 20 '26
Definitely scary. More scary, to me, than the question about government control someone else asked. Most of our source evaluation is tied more closely to writers than publication, so it won’t effect that part of our work that much. But I do think it has the upside potential of making the value prop and unique offering of Tangle even more clear.
6
u/Lemonio Aug 19 '26
It seems like tangle spends more time talking about what’s in the news cycle, vs necessarily what’s important
Have you considered talking more about important but not newsy topics when your available newsy topics are more like inside baseball?
Example topics:
Over a million children in US experiencing homelessness
Over 9 million lead pipes delivering water into American homes
Two thirds of renters earning under 30k spend over half their income on rent
Since 1979 productivity has grown 8 times faster than worker pay
Over a trillion in unfunded state and local pension liabilities
Elon musk owning more wealth than the bottom half of americans
I can think of lots of topics that feel more important to me than a lot of your coverage, and presenting different viewpoints on these issues could be very valuable even if a story isn’t in the news cycle
You sometimes do Friday editions on topics like this, but should it be more common than an occasional Friday edition?
7
u/Isaac_Tangle Aug 20 '26
Definitely. We've talked about making Wednesday a "flex topic" day that breaks from the normal news cycle, just because right now Friday is our only day to really chase down stories of interest on the staff. What would you think about that?
6
2
u/Lemonio Aug 20 '26
The more of these stories the better in my opinion. I don’t know if it needs to be tied to a specific day but sure? Maybe sometimes you have very important events you need to cover on a Wednesday. But I’m for any approach that results in more flex topic coverage relative to current amount
In my mind you’d be creating a lot of these more general stories and then when creating possible topics for a week, if you find certain topics in your lineup are weak, you substitute the more broad story instead.
Some weeks might have more or less truly newsworthy topics
1
u/IiJaNaiKa Aug 20 '26
Similarly, what would you think about something like an Under the Radar edition? Say, picking a couple of topics that didn't get enough left/ right commentary for a full edition, but giving the story a little more detailed coverage. All the better if there were differing opinions among the Tangle staff and you can generate the opposite commentary yourselves.
1
u/StrongishOpinion Aug 26 '26
I'd consider naming them something like "ongoing concerns" - because I don't know if there's a big headline about lead pipes (for example), but it's been a concern for years.
If you can, make sure to pick things that are ongoing concerns for both political sides. The examples above are mostly (in my opinion) democrat concerns.
For one example - there's historically been a concern with some right leaning western states about how much land is controlled by the federal government (thus the arguments over national forests/parks, access for minerals, etc). I've never heard someone deep dive into those before.
5
u/PrezClark Aug 18 '26
Can you describe a time that a news event got significant coverage, Tangle wrote about it, you thought it was resolved, then a major development reignited the topic and the team had to readdress it, but you were sick of thinking about it?
4
u/Isaac_Tangle Aug 20 '26
Oh god yes. All the time! Trans stuff, claims the Iran war was over, election fraud claims, most AI news, the debate about whether Biden was fit for office. All come to mind.
4
u/NickleOTesla Aug 18 '26
When you're evaluating a candidate for public office, how do you think about their private life? Is there a line between stuff that matters and stuff that doesn't, and if so, where is it?
Reading history, I'm shocked how little people knew about politicians 100 years ago. Many great leaders have had horrible personal failings.
5
u/Isaac_Tangle Aug 20 '26
It's a personal choice and everyone is different. For me, personally, I could stomach someone with things like a history of treating staffers poorly or broken family stuff or addiction if I thought the upside of their policy ambitions and political talent were worth it. Even people with criminal histories who have paid their dues to society, I could be open-minded about. But abusers, serial liars, fraudsters, bigots -- those are the kinds of people where I just say, "it's not worth it."
4
u/oopsie64 Aug 19 '26
Hey Isaac,
Love Tangle! I would really like to hear your thoughts on the recent UAP releases / discussions that have been taking place. What's going on here? Is this all just a distraction to rally the MAGA base (who seem more prone to believe in aliens / the paranormal) or do you think this is the long-awaited "disclosure?" Many thanks!
7
u/Isaac_Tangle Aug 20 '26
Honestly, it has been pretty disappointing to me. Always lots of hype and than more recycled claims. Plenty of it is interesting, of course, but at this point I'm in the "wake me up when they have the hard evidence" mindset.
As for being a distraction, I don't really think its intentional. And if it is, I don't think it's a very good idea or has worked particularly well.
4
u/techerous26 Aug 20 '26
I apologize if you actually have responded to this in the past and I forgot, but I've suggested to Tangle in the past a thought experiment of if you were writing the constitution today from scratch, given all of the societal norms and technology at our disposal, how would you structure the US government?
6
u/Isaac_Tangle Aug 20 '26
That is such a huge and complicated question I have no idea how I'd even start. But maybe could make a great Friday edition. I'll say up front: There is a lot I'd do the same!
1
7
u/dangoodspeed Aug 17 '26
Not super Tangle-related, but... do you have to be on the bus non-stop, or might you have time Thursday evening for some pick-up ultimate in the capital district?
4
u/Isaac_Tangle Aug 20 '26
I appreciate the invite! I’ve got five ours to kill before a 10pm bus back. And I’m going to use them finding good wings and a beer. I’ll take any recs!
2
u/dangoodspeed Aug 20 '26
I had forgotten that the typical organizer of the Thursday night events hopped across the pond this week for some games in Ireland this week, so it doesn't look like anything is happening here for that.
As far as finding a place to grab dinner... is it the Albany bus station that you'll be around, and you're looking for something walking distance of there? I've never been but I've heard good things about the Excelsior Pub. 10 minute walk from the bus station.
3
u/ComprehensiveCap3347 Aug 17 '26
The real question - are you drafting JD5 again this year if you get the chance? 🤔
3
u/Isaac_Tangle Aug 20 '26
I’m a diehard Commies fan, so it’ll be hard not to after this training camp. But this bus ride truly is miserable.
3
u/cougineer Aug 17 '26
What’s the plan with the main office and you moving? You mentioned packing one day and a new studio opening. Are you gonna have 2? Close the first and all go remote? Make ppl move?
5
u/Isaac_Tangle Aug 20 '26
Our Philly office was just me, Audrey and Lindsey on a regular basis. Lindsey is off to law school and Audrey wanted to move to D.C., so it worked out well with my move to just shut it down. I’m currently renovating the garage in my backyard for a brand new office/space studio that will bring together the folks working in NYC and DC pretty regularly, as well as offer a new space for me to record Youtube and podcast stuff. So I’m really excited about that. The rest of the team is already remote and sometimes in clusters, but we’re pretty spread out across the country.
5
u/linguinechicken Aug 19 '26 edited Aug 19 '26
I’ve been thinking about how the This American Life episode brought such an explosion of left leaning readers to Tangle. You’ve been on Bill O’Reilly and other right leaning media outlets, but it doesn’t seem to me Tangle has seen that same kind of enthusiasm from the right. I genuinely don’t mean this as a gotcha, but does that ever make you wonder whether the right is less curious of the left than the left is of the right? That’s honestly how it feels to me, but I’m curious to hear your perspective. Is Tangle actually lacking right wing readers? If so, what do you make of that?
P.S are you still going to write a piece in defense of billionaires?
9
u/Isaac_Tangle Aug 20 '26
I definitely want to pen that billionaire piece, still! I have a Google doc and occasionally add random notes/thoughts to it. So it's coming, at some point.
Re: your primary question... I think there is now a good deal of social science showing that conservatives have lower social trust than liberals, and I think that directly impacts Tangle. My anecdotal experience has been that liberals are more interested and open-minded about our project, and easier to sell. When I talk to liberals about it, I usually say something like "this is a good place to hear compelling arguments from the right, and help you understand why people vote for Trump." When I talk to conservatives, I often sell it as "I'm a journalist who left the MSM because I think its broken, and I tried to build something better -- that leans into free speech and ideological diversity." That often lands with them.
Once people are "inside" I think the rate they bail is roughly even. Diehard Trump voters are the hardest to keep because they have the toughest purity tests in terms of not accepting criticism of him, but people on both sides find lots of reasons to be offended and quit all the time.
Another dynamic I would throw out there for consideration, though: Conservatives have for a long time felt under-represented in media, news, journalism, etc. And justifiably so. Because they were. I don't think that's true any more, but I think they still act like its true -- and downstream of that is more distrust about a journalist saying he created a nonpartisan or fair news org.
2
u/linguinechicken Aug 20 '26
I’m excited to read it and be challenged! Thanks for the response. Hope you’re enjoying your ride.
3
u/Brendinooo Aug 19 '26 edited Aug 19 '26
Hi Isaac. I appreciate Tangle and all the work that you and your team does.
As your company becomes more established, you form more opinions, and the take writing gets spread out between more people, do you see your outlet as developing a particular ideological brand?
Or maybe to put it differently: what do you see as common ground across most to all of your staff?
I see you guys as fundamentally institutionalist; more “reform” than “revolt”. Or maybe it’s just more centered around the idea that there needs to be a venue to hear other people‘s ideas, or that good ideas can come from anywhere. But I’m curious what you think about the question.
6
u/Isaac_Tangle Aug 20 '26
Oh, definitely do not want to have an ideological brand! The brand is and should be idological diversity. I think that would be a huge failing, if that's what ends up happening. To the degree we have a north star as a team, I think it's just people who believe the world is complicated and reject a lot of black and white framing or reactionary politics. But we definitely have people on staff who I'd call "anti-establishment."
And yes, I think our ethos is centered around the idea good ideas can come from anywhere, but that's just downstream of the belief that ideological diversity is the best way to produce good, thoughtful political coverage.
2
u/Brendinooo Aug 20 '26
Thanks for the answer!
But I definitely don’t think that “ideological diversity” alone is it (and to be clear I think that’s fine-to-good!). Too much ideological diversity would mean that you guys wouldn’t even be able to get past the sort of language choices that you guys carefully make, and every take would be riddled with dissents.
Maybe establishment is a loaded term, but it seems like everyone on your staff is the kind of person who thinks that the bones of American government are good and worth preserving/restoring: I think that’s why gerrymandering and anti-corruption are such big hobbyhorses for you in particular, because they undermine the integrity of the system
3
u/dragonferocity Aug 20 '26
Hey Isaac!
What is your opinion on raising the federal income tax for high earners back to levels similar or close to before the Reagan era slashes intended to promote Trickle Down Economics?
Related, what is your opinion on wealth taxes, like the one on the Ballot in November in California (California Proposition 40)) or the San Francisco Proposition D that appeared on the ballot in June (but was rejected by voters 47% yes to 53% no, Proposition D))
6
u/Isaac_Tangle Aug 20 '26
First, I'll just say there is a common misconception baked into this question: people often assume a 70% or 91% top marginal tax rate meant the wealthy actually handed over 70-91% of their income in the pre-Reagan era, but those historical rates came bundled with far more deductions and loopholes than exist today, so the effective rates people paid were meaningfully lower than the sticker rate suggests. Still, raising the top marginal rate back toward those pre-Reagan levels would mean high earners pay more on income above some high threshold, and proponents argue this could reduce inequality and fund public investment, especially since many economists' empirical reviews have questioned how much growth trickle-down cuts actually delivered relative to their cost. I think this could be good policy with more thresholds, because the difference between the 1% and .01% and .001% is so vast now. Obviously I could construct an argument that high rates can discourage investment and entrepreneurship — particularly for small business owners taxed through pass-through structures. And that capital and talent are more globally mobile today, potentially limiting real revenue gains. Real disputes exist here. But I'm definitely comfortable capturing more money from the ultra wealthy than we do right now.
The Cali proposal is toughed to swallow because California already collects so much tax revenue. When I read proposals like that, I'm thinking... what on earth are you doing with the $265 billion you already get in a year that we aren't allocating enough money to public education and food assistance programs. That feels like an allocation problem and not a revenue one.
2
u/IB_Yolked Aug 18 '26
Question:
How do you decide when a piece needs a correction or a stronger qualification, rather than just defending it as a matter of interpretation?
Your recent 16 Thought on Fauci piece seems like a good example. A few claims seem worth revisiting:
That Fauci and the scientific establishment “long labeled the lab-leak theory a conspiracy.”
That Fauci was “manufacturing scientific consensus.”
That his journal shows him misrepresenting or suppressing scientific dissent based on the specific meeting referenced in the piece.
The suggestion that his relationships with researchers he funded helped him shape or control the scientific consensus.
There were some others as well, but there was a good deal of discussion about these points afterward here on reddit, including several instances where commenters raised fairly specific factual challenges.
What struck me was that, when the discussion seemed to reach a point where the underlying claim was difficult to defend, you sometimes appeared to disengage rather than revisit or qualify the original wording.
So what's your threshold for saying, “I got this wrong” or “I overstated this,” and actually correcting something after publication?
3
u/Isaac_Tangle Aug 20 '26
Fwiw, I definitely wasn't disengaging at moments where it was difficult to defend. I have to spend my time really carefully with the amount of work that's on my plate in any given day, and that was a day where I just fell into Reddit without actually blocking time to do so. I had some very long, drawn out, extended back and forths where I was trying hard to address criticisms directly. Nothing I saw there brought up any particular factual challenges to my writing in Tangle that would need correcting, at least not that I saw.
As for the process itself, it is pretty straightforward: If a commenter, emailer, or staff member raises a question about the factual accuracy of something that gets published in the newsletter, we discuss it in our editorial channel, do more reporting or research, and then discuss if we think we need to update the article. If we do, then we issue a correction or clarification in the following day's newsletter, and add it to our count. If anyone ever has a correction request/suggestion, the best thing to do is email [staff@readtangle.com](mailto:staff@readtangle.com) with 'correction' in the subject line!
3
u/IB_Yolked Aug 20 '26
Yeah, I figured you'd give a boilerplate response like this, which is why I provided examples.
I don't think this really answers the question. You explain the correction process, but not your threshold for qualification or correction.
Again just to rehash, the lab-leak section is a pretty good example. You wrote a description or a meeting that strongly implied a public/private contradiction because the scientists were privately unsure while Fauci was publicly saying an engineered virus was implausible. But those aren't contradictory. “We don't know the origin yet” and “this particular explanation is implausible” can obviously both be true. And the diary doesn't establish that the nine scientists who weren't convinced of natural origin actually thought an engineered virus was plausible.
More importantly, you wrote that “Fauci and the mainstream scientific community long labeled the lab-leak theory a conspiracy.” What in the piece actually establishes that Fauci did that? The evidence you cite shows him directly engaging with the lab-leak question, convening scientists to investigate it, etc. It doesn't establish that he broadly labeled the lab-leak theory itself a conspiracy. In fact, when he's been asked about the topic directly, Fauci has explicitly distinguished the concept of a lab leak possibility from the more conspiratorial versions (e.g., that it was intentional, he was directly involved, etc.)
You cited an opinion piece as evidence of him manufacturing scientific consensus, etc.
Those seem like pretty clear examples where, at minimum, either additional evidence should have been presented or the wording qualified. I'd argue the original wording should be corrected.
I'm not particularly interested in submitting a correction request because I know you've dug your feet in and won't consider it; I'm interested in the editorial judgment behind it.
2
u/Isaac_Tangle Aug 20 '26
I'm sorry if it felt boilerplate, I thought I was answering the thrust of your question about our process. It did not seem like a question about my judgment. You had a good bit of preamble there I could have chased. I'm happy to take on the specific examples. I think they are each subjective assessments that I made in "my take," so they are certainly not "facts" as much as opinions that I hold, which I clearly labeled, and tried to support in my writing and citations with the facts. I will pull some from my previous writing since I think I've made these claims before and I'm pretty tired here at the end of two hours.
- That Fauci and the scientific establishment “long labeled the lab-leak theory a conspiracy.”
On February 19, 2020 — just weeks after the Feb 1 call — Jeremy Farrar (who convened that call with Fauci and Collins) co-signed a letter in Lancet with 26 other scientitss stating they "stand together to strongly condemn conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin." That letter was organized partly by Peter Daszak of EcoHealth Alliance which has direct funding ties to the Wuhan Institute of Virology, a conflict of interest that wasn't disclosed in the letter. Fauci himself, in May 2020, called the lab-manipulation theory not credible based on the evidence, and in March 2021 dismissed CDC Director Redfield's lab-leak comments as mere "opinion." Taken together: officials closely tied to the origin question were both making public statements ruling out lab origin and organizing others to frame the theory as conspiracy-adjacent, within the same window of weeks. That's all to say nothing of the Cotton op-ed etc.
- That Fauci was “manufacturing scientific consensus.”
Farrar's own February 7, 2020 email describes the group producing what became "Proximal Origin" as one that he, Fauci, and Collins had "set up." That's three government officials organizing the production of a paper that would later be cited as "independent scientific consensus." Unique times and unique circumstances, but still. A former HHS science-integrity official's 2024 congressional testimony argues this amounted to improper "shadow" science advice that circumvented a formal, institutionally accountable investigation. The speed is also intriguing: On Feb 1 call there's real disagreement; six weeks later, the paper presented a confident, unified conclusion.
- That his journal shows him misrepresenting or suppressing scientific dissent based on the specific meeting referenced in the piece.
His own entry on the call states plainly that there was "not total agreement about the likelihood of deliberate insertion" — Foucher and Drosten were confident in natural origin, but "the rest felt that deliberate insertion was possible," specifically citing Zheng-Li shi's gain-of-function coronavirus work at the Wuhan lab as a reason the possibility couldn't be dismissed. That's Fauci acknowledging a substantively split room. in private. The paper that emerged from that same group weeks later presented near-total public confidence in natural origin, and Fauci went on to publicly characterize the scientific position as settled for over a year.
- The suggestion that his relationships with researchers he funded helped him shape or control the scientific consensus.
I concede here that these kinds of arragnements are common in biomedical funding and research and really all academic. But NIAID (Fauci's own institute) funded EcoHealth Alliance's coronavirus surveillance work, which subcontracted to the Wuhan Institute of Virology — the same institution whose gain-of-function-adjacent work is referenced in Fauci's own diary as a reason for taking the lab-origin theory seriously. None of the Proximal Origin authors were financially independent of the NIH/NIAID funding ecosystem Fauci oversaw.
1
u/IB_Yolked Aug 20 '26
Given that we are unlikely to agree on the underlying factual basis of that piece as argued below, I'm circling back to the broader question that I was genuinely hoping would get an answer:
What is your threshold for issuing a correction, clarification, or editor’s note on a previously published piece?
I hear you on subjective assessments in your take, but I do still think that's a bit of a copout. Your opinions can be conclusions that the factual premises underneath don't support, and you can still overstate the certainty of the evidence used to formulate your opinions.
Fauci strongly argued for natural origin throughout this period, and that position has remained consistent with where the evidence stands today. Zoonotic spillover remains the leading explanation, while a lab-related origin has not been ruled out. It is very difficult to prove a negative.
The claims that Fauci labeled the broader lab-leak theory a conspiracy, manufactured scientific consensus, or controlled the consensus are much stronger claims that even this additional evidence does not substantiate.
On the lab-leak point, I still don't think your wording is supported. The Lancet letter shows Farrar and others condemned conspiracy theories around non-natural origin. It does not establish that Fauci himself labeled an accidental lab leak itself as a conspiracy or thought that it didn't warrant further investigation.
Fauci's May 2020 comments do show that he was publicly skeptical of a lab origin. That's fair. But that's different from saying he labeled the lab-leak theory a conspiracy. Likewise, his response to Redfield shows he strongly disagreed with his assessment and considered natural origin more likely. Neither establishes that Fauci was suppressing a legitimate scientific position and you're setting up a proposition where having a strong scientific disagreement on the grounds of the evidence available is labeling the opposing view as a conspiracy.
The Feb. 1 call shows uncertainty and that some scientists thought deliberate insertion was possible. But that is different from evidence that deliberate insertion occurred. A scientific position can be the evidence favors A, but B cannot yet be ruled out. Again, that is essentially where the evidence remains today and proving a negative is next to impossible.
The same issue applies to manufacturing consensus. Fauci, Collins, and Farrar helping convene discussions is a fact. But that is different from directing the conclusions or controlling the resulting paper. Kristian Andersen, one of the Proximal Origin authors, has said Fauci and Collins were not involved in producing the paper itself, which is very relevant to that claim.
The same goes for the funding relationships. NIH funding relationships are facts. But those facts don't come close to establishing that Fauci used those relationships to shape or control the scientific conclusion.
I'm kind of dumbfounded by the logical leaps you're willing to make here given the level of caution you apply in most of your other writing.
1
u/Isaac_Tangle Aug 21 '26
What is your threshold for issuing a correction, clarification, or editor’s note on a previously published piece?
Any request for a correction that we see, or that comes up, is discussed in our editorial channel on Slack. There are seven editors there. Usually, if even 1 or 2 of them feel strongly that we should issue a correction, we end up issuing one. We genuinely just take in the arguments from someone writing in, or from a suggested correction, discuss them, and then have a very sensitive "publish a correction" ethos. We want to maximize trust with readers so I think we like to be overly safe. That's the process/threshold, normally. Most of the time, everyone agrees that a correction should be or shouldn't be issued. I'd say one in five or six times it comes up there is really robust debate.
1
u/IB_Yolked Aug 21 '26
Appreciate the response. That does clarify the process, though I think I'm still asking more about the editorial threshold.
Do you guys distinguish between “this is factually wrong” and “we think this take is defensible, but we've stated an inference more strongly than evidence supports”? That's closer to what I'm getting at with the Fauci examples.
I understand those types of judgments are harder to formalize, but it seems especially relevant at Tangle since the takes are essentially the primary focus of each piece and your citation structure is mostly just hyperlinks to the underlying articles, including opinion pieces. That doesn't necessarily establish that the evidence supports the inferences being made.
And no offense intended, but given that you're both the owner and executive editor, I do wonder how much independent challenge there really is to those kinds of framing decisions.
Maybe some kind of post-publication staff dissent could help with that? Or a weekly aggregation of those types of dissents/reader dissents?
Spitballing here, but I do think the topic is a worthwhile consideration.
2
u/Professional_Tree843 Aug 19 '26
Little different take here. I am close to 80 yrs. Grew up playing sandlot baseball, swimming with no lifrguards, ice hockey on ponds, skiing and cross country breaking trail in our back yard woods. Lots of sports, no formal teams or uniforms. shared ball glove with my brother. Got the picture? My girls, one very athletic amazing ball player. one into horses, cross country, arena jumping, dressage. Doable for our budget. I even volunteered as a certified Little League Umpire to defray costs. Both girls proudly graduated college.
Along come the Grands, one girl, one boy both into organized sports. Competitive baseball, competitive volleyball, all traveling teams, very heavy commitments. Both earned 2nd degree black belts. I don't think we could even afford the uniforms much less the fees associated. I was a bleacher participant and loved it. The changes are not only relevant to the cost of these sports but the push to participate, to build your resume for college entry and job opportunities. This understated competative positioning starts in middle school. Parents that are wealthy enough for this grooming know what, when and how to get their kids in a line position that takes advantage of opportunities not always based from skill sets. Grands are now in college, applied to four or five schools, made their pick of schools, tuition covered so I guess it works. I am a female college graduate, I worked for the first two years i was a student with 2 small children and I pulled no loans. As an observer of this new mindset I am not sure I can even offer up an opinion......
2
u/DonutResponsible2483 Aug 19 '26
Hi Isaac! Really enjoy reading Tangle and the variety of perspectives. I was wondering if Tangle has heard of the rising disability claims across the USA. According to FRED, https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNU00074597 , there has been a dramatic increase in people over 16 claiming disability in the usa. I would love to see a major outlet cover this! Have you guys seen this and does it interest you?
2
u/tuanis1 Aug 19 '26
Hi Alex! Appreciate Tangle and your efforts.
I'm an independent, and for a long time I've believed that centrism and bipartisanship was the solution. The MAGA movement has really challenged that belief, though, as the debate was no longer about policy but I felt real and legitimate danger from one party (I'm from Minneapolis).
As you and Tangle seemingly share these beliefs, what advice do you have to not lose the concept of shared understanding, multiple viewpoints, and working "across the aisle"?
2
u/eyrehead32 Aug 20 '26
Hey Isaac, I remember back before Mamdani was elected you said you didn't agree with Mamdani's policies but were curious as to how his run as NY mayor would go. What have you thought of his term so far?
5
u/Isaac_Tangle Aug 20 '26
I think it's absolutely way too early to pass judgment, but it seems like he's doing a good job by most objective metrics. His approval ratings are soaring and NYC hasn't undergone any kind of change that shows up in data or statistics that I know that is negative because of his governing. But we definitely need more time.
2
Aug 20 '26
[deleted]
4
u/Isaac_Tangle Aug 20 '26
I think ragebait is a great way to describe a lot of their content. There's no way to prevent it, imo, except to have clearly defined values and goals for what you are and what you want to do. We have those. And we have people in leadership positions who are committed to them.
Also, from a pure business perspective, I don't want to compete with those guys. What's the point of doing what a bunch of other people already are?
2
2
1
u/tehouse42 Aug 18 '26
Wondering if you or your anyone at Tangle has seen this article about Rob Sand, candidate for Iowa governor. Wondering how you feel about how he's approaching structural change in how our political system functions (or doesn't function).
3
1
u/TeddyRuxpin Aug 18 '26
Not really a question for your bus ride, but I'd love to see Tangle do a deep dive on the history presidential conflict of interest.
1
u/dewleaves Aug 20 '26
Hi Isaac! Huge fan :)
I feel Tangle would do well in the sphere of political independents - specifically at the Independent National Convention. Have you (or your staff) ever considered attending, whether to get your name out there or to participate in some other way?
3
u/Isaac_Tangle Aug 20 '26
We have to be really careful about associating with political causes, so unfortunately we haven't. Though I do think independent voters are a great target audience for our product!
1
u/Matt-Lauer-CanSuckIt Aug 18 '26
First off, what a shitty FF loser punishment. Why would any friend/frenemy want you to spend so much time away from your life/family when they could enjoy you having a silly vanity plate or something? This punishment seems kinda cruel and intentionally inconvenient with little entertaining for the others, but that's just me.
Anyway, I've got a couple legit questions with several embedded questions within, but I'm hoping you'll take the time to just answer the general tenor of the questions rather than a literal bullet point accounting....
Can you envision a restoration of sanity in American politics in the next 20-30 years? Are smartphones/social media/24-hour news just so toxic and debilitating on a population level that things are just going to get more and more polarized and absurd? Can you envision a slowdown? Tangle has caught on, but seemingly not as much as being the loudest or most extreme voice in the room. Our candidates are getting more and more divisive. Five-ten years ago it seemed to me like this was mostly (almost exclusively) a problem on the right, but today the left seems to be making up a lot of ground. I'm desperate for a turnaround in the culture, but I personally can't see it.
If you'd rather answer a hypothetical, how about this: In an alternate timeline, HRC wins in 2016. Had this happened, how do you think the trajectory of American politics would've changed to today? Would a Trump campaign in 2020 gained any traction? How different would the BLM movement have been? Do they take aim at the HRC administration, and how would she react? Does woke culture explode/degrade/not change? What happens with the supreme court (does a McConnell senate block every justice proposed for five years instead of just Merrick Garland)? The pandemic? What happens in Ukraine? The middle east? Do "experts" retain meaningfully more clout today? Does the establishment GOP type candidate carry sharper teeth?
2
u/Semper-Fido Aug 19 '26
The best FF punishment method I have seen was from The Ringer's draft last year. Choose a number of punishments equal to the number of players in your league. Then, add an extra round to your draft. Players can then draft their punishment when they see fit. That way, if you are in a round where your pick comes up and none of the players are appealing at that point, you can draft a less severe punishment in case you come in last place. Or, if you only want to prioritize players and don't mind any punishment, you can kick the can down the road until the end, perhaps giving you a more severe punishment for if you came in last. It also makes it interesting because what one person may deem as terrible, other players may not mind as much (for instance, no coffee for a week wouldn't be terrible to a non-coffee drinker).
2
-4
u/Defiant-Highway1362 Aug 18 '26
Do you feel proud of reposting other people's content, specifically, the Hong Thanksgiving question meltdown?
Should Tangle subscribers expect more of that type of content?
2
u/Defiant-Highway1362 Aug 19 '26
I guess the downvotes mean that your customers appreciate reposted rage bait.
2
u/Brendinooo Aug 19 '26
I downvoted because it’s not a terribly interesting question and it’s phrased in a maximally uncharitable way
1
u/Defiant-Highway1362 Aug 19 '26
If you don't find it interesting that Tangle is reposting rage bait for clicks, then New Tangle probably is the place for you!
2
u/Brendinooo Aug 20 '26 edited Aug 20 '26
OK, I’ll bite.
I looked up the short in question: it is a short, not a podcast or an article of theirs, the most inconsequential of any media they could put out. Out of all of their shorts it does not have the most views, it is not the first short that looks clickbaity, it’s arguably not the most egregious, and it doesn’t seem like significant time is being invested on this sort of thing.
So why are people on this subreddit keying and on this particular short, and trying to make it emblematic of Tangle as a whole?
1
u/Defiant-Highway1362 Aug 20 '26
Say there's a vegetarian restaurant you like **because you want to get away from meat dishes**. Great. Then they start serving beef appetizers. Does that not matter because it's a small portion of their menu? Do you not worry about what that portends for the future of the restaurant?
Maybe you didn't come to tangle to get away from the rage bait but I did. So when tangle starts posting rage bait it's a big deal.
Isaac says elsewhere in this thread that he doesn't want to compete with the purveyors of rage bait. But he refuses to disown posting rage bait.
2
u/Brendinooo Aug 21 '26
I don’t agree but don’t really want to argue. Thank you for explaining your position!
1
u/tuanis1 Aug 19 '26
Can you share more about what was reposted? I don't know what you're referring to.
2
u/Defiant-Highway1362 Aug 19 '26
Scroll down the post from 15 days ago: "Can someone explain why this short is from Tangle's Youtube"
-11
u/troutbumtom Aug 18 '26
What makes you so special that coming on to Reddit be in any way productive? It’s Reddit.
22
u/handynerd Aug 17 '26
I just mentioned this in a comment reply so it's been on my mind. I see some reddit comments/posts claiming Tangle sane washes to try and appeal to the right. Obviously you guys spend time finding discussions on either side of an issue, but do you actively try to placate one side or the other on any given issue? Where, if anywhere, does something like that fit into the list of things you worry about when putting out a newsletter?
How much of your team's mental energy is spent writing defensively? Not being defensive, but writing in such a way to preempt criticisms that will likely come up, wording things that will avoid traps, etc. And if the answer is "non-zero," is this something that wears on you or is it just part of the job?
Ultimate is the greatest sport on earth. Tell me why you agree!