When Hobby Accounts Start Talking About ICE: How Creators, Communities, and the Open Web Turn Outrage Into a Network Effect

AI generated image for When Hobby Accounts Start Talking About ICE: How Creators, Communities, and the Open Web Turn Outrage Into a Network Effect

Some stories are so obviously “political” that you can hear the comment section warming up its “stay in your lane” engines before the first paragraph is done. And then there are stories like this one, where the “lane” turns out to be… basically the entire internet.

On January 25, 2026, The Verge published a short, sharp report by Terrence O’Brien (Weekend Editor) titled “Creators and communities everywhere take a stand against ICE.” The piece is a snapshot of a moment: after the killing of Alex Pretti in Minneapolis, online communities that normally avoid politics—think quilting accounts, niche subreddits, wood-chopping influencers, and yes, people who “play cats like bongos”—started posting anti-ICE messages, banning pro-ICE rhetoric, and generally refusing to pretend this is someone else’s problem. (Original source)

That Verge post is not long. It doesn’t need to be. The signal is the point: when the apolitical corners of the web flip, you’re watching a narrative shift happen in real time. For tech folks, it’s also a reminder that the “policy layer” is inseparable from the “platform layer”—and that law enforcement, content moderation, surveillance tooling, creator economics, and community governance are now the same conversation, whether any of us asked for it or not.

So let’s expand the lens. What exactly is happening when creators “take a stand” against a federal agency? Why are hobbyist communities suddenly writing moderation policies about immigration enforcement? And what does it mean for platforms, advertisers, and the increasingly automated systems that shape visibility online?

The Verge’s core observation: the apolitical internet is getting political anyway

O’Brien’s reporting is built around a pattern: creators and communities who typically avoid politics are speaking out after the Minneapolis killing of Alex Pretti, and after “recent shootings of civilians by federal agents.” The Verge notes that this isn’t limited to explicitly political spaces—some subreddits and accounts explicitly try to stay politics-free, often because politics is brand poison for niche creators. Yet even those spaces are reacting. citeturn1view0turn2news14

Among the examples highlighted in The Verge piece:

  • A moderator post in r/catbongos stating that support for Trump/ICE isn’t welcome in the subreddit. citeturn1view0

  • Backlash in other mainstream subreddits, including references to r/military commenters calling the situation “tyranny” and criticizing federal officials. citeturn1view0
  • Creators across platforms—podcasters, musicians, YouTubers, TikTokers—posting anti-ICE messages despite audience risk (and, in some cases, immigration risk). citeturn1view0
  • Statements from organizations like the National Basketball Players Association and United Musicians & Allied Workers aligning with protests and criticizing ICE. citeturn1view0turn2search1

The key technical point hiding inside all this cultural noise is that community norms—like “no politics”—are themselves a kind of moderation system. They’re a safety mechanism for maintaining focus, preventing flamewars, and protecting creator revenue. When those norms collapse or get rewritten, it’s not just a political change. It’s a governance change.

What happened in Minneapolis, and why creators reacted

The Verge ties the shift to the killing of Alex Pretti in Minneapolis. Other outlets report that Pretti was a 37-year-old nurse, and that his death sparked protests and prompted public statements from institutions such as the NBPA. citeturn2news14turn2news13turn2search1

The NBPA’s official statement, dated January 25, 2026, explicitly says NBA players “can no longer remain silent” and that “we must defend the right to freedom of speech and stand in solidarity with the people in Minnesota protesting and risking their lives to demand justice.” citeturn2search1

From a platform dynamics standpoint, big institutional statements like that matter less for their content (which is political) and more for their coordination effect. When a major union speaks, a thousand smaller creators feel safer speaking too. It’s the opposite of “stay in your lane.” It’s “the lane is now a multi-lane highway and everyone’s merging.”

The “apolitical creator” is a business model, not a personality trait

We should be blunt about this: most creators aren’t apolitical because they lack opinions. They’re apolitical because they have metrics.

On ad-driven platforms, politics is volatile content. It can spike engagement but it also triggers brand-safety filters, demonetization, subscriber churn, harassment, and moderation workload. For hobbyist creators—golfing, woodworking, music gear reviews—the value proposition is “I provide calm, focused content that doesn’t make you argue with strangers.” The Verge’s point is that some creators have decided the cost of silence is now higher than the cost of speaking. citeturn1view0

That’s an important inflection because it changes what “normal content” looks like on feeds. It also changes what platforms must moderate—because political discourse isn’t just happening in political zones anymore.

Community moderation is the overlooked power center

If you want to understand why a niche subreddit banning pro-ICE talk matters, you need to understand moderation as infrastructure.

Moderators and community admins are effectively unpaid policy implementers for private platforms. They decide what’s allowed, what’s off-topic, what gets removed, and what gets you kicked out. The Verge’s r/catbongos example is funny on the surface, but it demonstrates a governance reality: a community can decide that certain political stances are incompatible with participation, even when the platform itself allows that speech. citeturn1view0

That creates a layered system:

  • Platform rules (global policy)
  • Community rules (local policy)
  • Creator rules (channel policy)
  • Algorithmic rules (what the feed rewards)

When the political conversation leaks from the “platform layer” into the “community layer,” it becomes more durable. Not because it’s more correct, but because it’s embedded in the social architecture: bans, sticky posts, automod filters, and community expectations.

Why this matters for tech: surveillance, OSINT, and the fear of being watched

The Verge piece is about creators speaking out, but the broader tech context is that ICE and DHS have been expanding technology-driven surveillance, including social media monitoring and large-scale data tooling. In other words: the agency people are criticizing is also an agency with a growing capacity to monitor the very platforms where that criticism is posted.

ICE and social media surveillance tooling

In October 2025, The Verge published a separate report describing ICE’s use of an AI-powered social media monitoring platform via a contract with Zignal Labs, and raised concerns from civil liberties advocates that such surveillance could chill speech and impact privacy. citeturn5news13

Wired has also reported on ICE planning a 24/7 social media surveillance program staffed by private analysts, documenting ambitions for rapid intelligence turnaround and integration with other data systems. citeturn5news15

Put those facts next to The Verge’s January 2026 reporting and you get a tension that creators feel instinctively:

  • Speaking out can be morally compelling.
  • Speaking out can also feel like yelling into a room where someone is writing down your name.

This is one reason the “apolitical internet” matters. Many creators who don’t post politics also haven’t built the operational security habits (threat modeling, privacy hygiene, harassment resilience) that political creators have learned the hard way. When they enter the arena, they’re often underprepared for the consequences.

Data platforms and the deportation pipeline

Multiple investigations have described Palantir’s long-running relationship with ICE, including the use of Palantir tools for case management and the expansion into a system described as ImmigrationOS. Wired reported on an ICE contract for Palantir to build ImmigrationOS, intended to provide near real-time tracking and streamline deportation workflows, raising concerns about privacy and due process. citeturn3news14

The Washington Post has also reported on Palantir’s evolving role in ICE operations and the political controversy around it. citeturn3news12

For tech readers, the point isn’t “Palantir bad” or “Palantir good.” The point is that modern immigration enforcement is increasingly software-defined. Once a government process becomes software-defined, it becomes scalable—and once it becomes scalable, it becomes tempting to apply it broadly.

Cell-site simulators: the “fake cell towers” problem

ICE surveillance is not limited to online posts. TechCrunch reported in October 2025 that ICE purchased vehicles equipped for cell-site simulator use (“fake cell towers”), citing contract records and noting that the vehicles support Homeland Security Technical Operations. citeturn3search0

Years earlier, TechCrunch reported on ACLU-obtained documents showing ICE deployed cell-site simulators hundreds of times (at least 466) between 2017 and 2019. citeturn3search4

Why bring this up in an article about creators? Because the creator economy runs on phones. And when a federal agency expands phone-location surveillance capacity, the risk calculus for protests, journalism, and public speech changes—whether or not you are the “target.”

The network effect of moral outrage (and why it’s different from “going viral”)

The Verge’s piece implicitly describes a network effect: not one celebrity speaking out, but many unrelated communities doing so simultaneously, including communities that usually avoid politics. citeturn1view0

That’s different from standard virality. A viral post is a single object (a video, a meme) spreading across nodes. What O’Brien describes is more like a protocol change: communities updating their default behavior.

In tech terms, it’s the difference between:

  • A spike (temporary attention)
  • A config change (new norms and rules)

When moderators start writing “pro-ICE content not welcome here,” that isn’t a trending moment. That’s configuration management. And once it’s in the config, it persists.

Why backlash doesn’t always stop people anymore

The traditional creator risk model assumes backlash is costly. That is still true. But two things have changed:

  • Creators have diversified revenue (Patreon-style memberships, merch, live events), making some less dependent on brand-safe advertising.
  • Creators have diversified platforms (TikTok, YouTube, Instagram, Threads, Bluesky, Mastodon, newsletters). When one platform punishes content, the creator can route around it.

This doesn’t eliminate risk; it distributes it. And distribution is exactly how resilient systems survive incidents.

Platforms in the middle: verification, legitimacy, and the “official account” dilemma

One of the more modern complications: platforms aren’t just hosting speech. They’re also conferring legitimacy through design choices—verification badges, official labels, recommendation slots, and search ranking.

In January 2026, discussion on Bluesky (and adjacent networks) highlighted how verification and the presence of official government accounts can trigger large-scale user backlash and mass-blocking behavior. For example, Reddit users discussed an “ICE Block Tracker” and reported that around 101,000 accounts had blocked an ICE account on Bluesky by January 17, 2026. (This is user-reported and not an official platform metric, but it illustrates the scale of user reaction.) citeturn5reddit14

Meanwhile, the fediverse’s “defederation” model was cited by commentators as a structural contrast: communities can choose not to connect to other communities or bridges they consider harmful. citeturn4search0

For platform designers, this is a reminder that “neutral infrastructure” is rarely experienced as neutral. A verified government account can be seen as transparency by one group and intimidation by another. The UI doesn’t just display identity; it shapes perceived power.

The creator economy meets civil liberties: what changes now

The most important takeaway from The Verge report isn’t that creators are political. It’s that the boundary between “content” and “civics” is dissolving, and platforms are the solvent.

That has implications across several layers of the tech stack.

1) Content moderation is becoming more localized—and more ideological

When communities begin explicitly banning support for certain government agencies or political movements, moderation becomes less about “no slurs” and more about values enforcement. That’s not automatically bad, but it is inherently political and will increase conflict, appeals, and accusations of bias.

Platforms that rely on volunteer moderation (Reddit-style) will see more divergence between communities. Platforms that rely on centralized moderation will face more pressure to set clear global policies—and take the heat for them.

2) Expect more creator operational security (OpSec) talk

As more creators speak about politically sensitive topics, more will learn about privacy tools, doxxing risks, and secure comms. Some of that learning will be healthy; some will be panic-driven and misinformed. Platforms and civil society groups will likely compete to provide “creator safety” resources, partly out of genuine concern and partly out of liability fear.

3) Surveillance tech will become a mainstream creator topic

When Wired and The Verge are reporting on social media monitoring, and TechCrunch is reporting on mobile cell-site simulator vehicles, surveillance becomes less abstract. citeturn5news15turn5news13turn3search0

The practical result is that creators will begin explaining these systems to their audiences—sometimes accurately, sometimes not. That increases public attention, but it also increases the spread of half-truths. We should expect more demand for plain-language explainers from credible sources (academics, NGOs, investigative reporters).

4) The “brand safety” conversation will get weirder

Advertisers traditionally dislike controversy, but they also dislike being the villain. If large numbers of creators and communities treat opposition to ICE actions as a moral baseline, brands may face pressure to either:

  • Stay silent and hope the cycle passes, or
  • Make statements and accept alienating part of their market.

Either way, the creator economy’s “safe topics” list shrinks, and creators become more cautious about dependence on ad networks.

A quick comparison: 2020-era platform activism vs 2026’s “community config” activism

It’s tempting to compare this moment to earlier cycles of online activism (2020 is the obvious reference point). But there’s a structural difference now:

  • In 2020, much activism was amplified by centralized platforms with massive reach.
  • In 2026, activism is also happening through community governance: blocks, bans, defederation debates, and a migration toward networks that let communities set their own boundaries.

This is not necessarily more effective politically, but it is more resilient socially. You can’t “turn down the algorithm” if the rule is written into a subreddit sidebar and enforced by moderators.

What to watch next (if you build or manage online communities)

If you’re a developer, community manager, trust-and-safety professional, or creator, here are a few practical signals to watch in the weeks after January 25, 2026:

  • Policy updates in “no politics” spaces: more subreddits and Discords will formalize rules about political speech (either allowing it under constraints or banning certain stances entirely).
  • Migration patterns: creators may diversify away from platforms perceived as legitimizing or amplifying government surveillance presence.
  • Increased demand for transparency tooling: communities will ask for better mod logs, better appeal flows, and better user controls (blocklists, filters, keyword mutes).
  • Platform conflict over “official accounts”: verification and identity systems will increasingly be treated as political instruments, not neutral features.

Closing thoughts: the internet’s hobby corners are still “real life”

Terrence O’Brien’s Verge piece works because it captures a specific kind of cultural moment: when people who just wanted to talk about bourbon, football memes, synth pedals, or cats being lightly bongo’d decide that silence is no longer compatible with community identity. citeturn1view0

In tech, we sometimes talk as if “politics” is a layer you can add or remove from a platform. But politics is what happens when power meets people. And platforms are where that meeting happens, at scale, with logs.

Creators and communities taking a stand against ICE is not only a political story. It’s a story about governance, surveillance tech, moderation labor, network effects, and the slow realization that “apolitical” was always a luxury feature—one that gets disabled when reality hits the feed.

Sources

Bas Dorland, Technology Journalist & Founder of dorland.org