5,635
Followers
3,666
Following
823
Posts
N/A
Reels
10
Highlights
10/2
Photos/Videos in last 12
Bio
Journalist, author, filmmaker. American Girls: Social Media & the Secret Lives of Teenagers. HBO’s Swiped: HookingUp inthe DigitalAge. The Bling Ring.
Links
nancyjosales.com www.vanityfair.com/news/2010/10/lindsay-lohan-201010?srsltid=AfmBOorYsIkmeK-T8JiXy1cP9gXAtZGCJbWGAVDokIKO2lg-1fBeOEyU www.vanityfair.com/news/2011/11/courtney-love-201111?srsltid=AfmBOorIADqYOelxD5tXR0UGVznLUPXk5iqAveBlcSDuJSA6iFuAhMZe www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/digital/charli-damelio-interview-life-tiktok-career-1236736245 www.nytimes.com/2026/10/30/opinion/you-can-see-everything-elizabeth-holmes-nathan-fielder.html-
Avg likes
-
Avg comments
-
Engagement
0.1/wk
Posting
Likes and comments are still being collected for this account. Check back shortly.
#1000hoursoutside#the1000hoursoutsidepodcast#americangirls#women#youngwomen#whovoted#startrek#trekkies
Recent posts
These need to be shared ➡️
American Girls by @nancyjosales is a critical read for todays parents. Don’t wait!
#1000hoursoutside #the1000hoursoutsidepodcast #americangirls
11 Apr 2024
NPR reported yesterday that this interview in my documentary Swiped: Hooking Up in the Digital Age is named in a new lawsuit! Plaintiffs in 3 states are suing Match Group, the company that owns most of the biggest dating apps, for designing the apps to be addictive. It’s here in my doc that Tinder co-founder Jonathan Badeen, inventor of the swipe, talks about how he based the swipe in part on a premise taken from an experiment by notorious psychologist BF Skinner, about how to pigeons can be turned into “gamblers.” Which means that, for dating app companies, we’re just pigeons. Do they really want us to find love, or just keep pecking for another pellet of food (or match)? Happy day after Valentine’s Day 😩🥰❤️ (I recorded this on my iPhone so sorry if it’s a lil shaky. You can watch Swiped on PrimeVideo, AppleTV and other platforms.)
15 Feb 2024
I am gutted after reading this book by @nancyjosales . We have to do better for our kids.
It came out seven years ago and I wish I would’ve read it earlier. Who else has read this one?
#1000hoursoutside @nancyjosales
03 Apr 2024
The voter analyses are coming in, and overall, it looks like it was young people who saved our butts, turning out in record numbers. Acc. to reports, about 66% of young people ages 18-29 voted for a Democratic candidate for the House, compared with 31% for a Republican. This marks the highest percentage of support for Democratic candidates among all age groups. Among the young, women were the standout group: 70% of young women voted for a Democrat in the midterms, as opposed to 59% of young men—who also shifted blue. A story today in the NYTimes highlights the swing to the left among young men, but young women of all backgrounds are the unsung heroes of this story. Thank you, ladies. (That’s Melat Kiros, age 29, youngest incoming member of the House, from Colorado.) #women #youngwomen #whovoted
06 Nov 2026
Shout out to this guy for making everybody want a Mamdani
03 Nov 2026
Evidence that something is rotten in You Can See Everything? Read this piece by Amy Chozick (link in bio). I believe her. Her explanation of what went on in her NYTimes interview with Elizabeth Holmes is entirely compelling. And I think it’s pretty outrageous that Nathan Fielder and Lance Oppenheim, YCSE’s directors, made her into a sort of offscreen villain, suggesting that she purposely misquoted Holmes. Why was this even a storyline—a “central theme,” as Chozick writes, which “essentially opens and closes the movie”—this suggestion that a reporter lied about poor Elizabeth Holmes? You know, the woman convicted of defrauding investors? The one with the fake blood-testing technology? Throughout the film, the directors give Holmes a chance to play the victim, at the expense of a female journalist’s reputation. Bravo, boys. I feel for Chozick because something similar happened to me. Alexis Neiers, one of the Bling Ring burglars, accused me of “lying” about what shoes she wore to court. Completely insane. And yet, a decade-old meme. But it was a fact-checking mistake, not a lie, seemingly so obvious, to me, I just stayed silent. I never threw the fact-checker under the bus—I just ignored the whole ridiculous thing, declining endless TV invitations to “defend myself” against Neiers, and refusing to participate in two documentaries. Big mistake! All these years later, the accusation still sticks to my shoe like a little piece of poop. I’m glad Chozick defended herself immediately. But here’s what gets me: Why are we still so eager to believe a convicted criminal over a female reporter? And why are two male filmmakers helping perpetuate the tired old stereotype that women journalists are unreliable, dishonest, or just making stuff up? Apparently, in this movie, a woman who reported a story is not to be trusted—in equal measure to a woman convicted of fraud. And the guys who made the movie get to call this supposedly original viewpoint—“everyone lies”—art. (P.S. Turning off comments on this one now as the Fielder cultists are starting to come out and troll; it doesn’t matter what the facts are, they just love their boy.)
30 Oct 2026
I’ve been trying to put my finger on what unsettled me the most about this movie. And yes, I know it’s supposed to be mindbendingly experimental, but I think it was watching Nathan Fielder listen to Elizabeth Holmes obfuscate and deny and outright lie and not call her out on it (like in the scene where she shows him the Theranos box and it isn’t even the real box, as the whistleblower has pointed out. Did Fielder even know? Surely few in the audience knew. But isn’t it the documentarian’s job to know—and let us know?). It reminded me of Fox News—and a lot of the other media—with Trump, just letting him get away with lying. One thing I’ve discovered from wading into this conversation a little bit though, is that there is an army of Fielder superfans out there who will say, “But that’s the point!” “You just don’t get his brilliance!”—like that scene in Life of Brian where the followers insist on Brian’s divinity—no matter how you dare criticize his film. (Which is why I’m turning off comments; I don’t want to be called names.) I do understand what Fielder was up to, I think (the Theranos whistleblower perhaps said it best: that this documentary was not in pursuit of truth, but ambiguity); but I also think that at a moment when we’re experiencing a serious emergency around accountability, this only contributes to the problem—even turns it into a kind of cynical joke. I understand his intention was not to relitigate her case; but in omitting so many of the facts, he undermines the value of facts. (And his fans might well argue that “that’s on purpose!” But aren’t facts important—especially now when our leaders want us to accept “alternative facts?”) Elizabeth Holmes committed serious crimes, and did serious harm—and she’s trying to do it all over again; but that gets lost in all her staring and weeping and breastfeeding, and proclaiming her “monuments of love” for the loathsome Billy.
26 Oct 2026
First, obviously a brilliant movie. A “masterpiece”? Maybe in comparison to a lot of movies these days. People are hungry for something nuanced and layered. Which it was. However, there are some very straightforward things going on that get muddled by a lot of long awkward pauses: Elizabeth Holmes is a liar, a manipulator, a woman who is especially good at manipulating men and weaponizing their misogyny for her own benefit. Which she does here throughout, including with the director. (Come on Nathan, she gets the joke in “Who’s on first”—duh. She just plays dumb really well ‘cause boys are intimidated by smart girls.) Billy the husband is a rank misogynist, awful—and dumb. They’re grifters together (Theranos 2.0!). Billy might run Elizabeth’s X account, but he in no way runs the show. Despite constantly posing in Madonna-and-child poses with her baby (including in the first shot of the movie), Holmes is as tough as a mob boss. And this movie was conceived of by her and Billy as PR for their new scam (which she lets Billy be the face of while she’s in prison—giving her plausible deniability). I was so relieved when Amanda Seyfried showed up to give a woman’s perspective. Seyfried was for me the only likable character, and that included the director—who made a lot of brilliant calls, including using Seyfried for reenactments. But if one of his goals was to get us to question whether Holmes was lying—or believed her own lies—there’s just too much hard evidence, not seen in the film, that she was a knowing fraudster and deserves prison. The thing I liked best: the comedy. The director has made a very funny movie; I havent seen enough people talking about that. The worst thing about it: it was a missed opportunity to explore how in the times we’re living in, we’re all being lied to. Mainly by the president on a daily basis. We’re all suffering from a crisis of truth.
22 Oct 2026
When an icon calls you “iconic”…💃
21 Oct 2026
It was such a pleasure to reunite with my old friends Maer Roshan and Julian Sancton to do this cover for The Hollywood Reporter on Charli D’Amelio—the O.G. TikTok star, who’s just recently thrown off the control of her family and former handlers, refusing to be another sad child star story. But what’s it like to be 22 and have more followers than the population of many countries?? With gorgeous images by @emmanmontalvan. Thanks so much @mrmaer @jsancton @hollywoodreporter
21 Oct 2026
On this, the 60th anniversary of the first airing of Star Trek, I thought of this photo from 2015, which shows my daughter Zazie at her first Star Trek convention, making friends with some Borgs.👽👽For all the non-Trekkies out there, Star Trek was never just some silly show with a guy with pointy ears (although it is that, too)—it’s an ode to democratic values, a call for an inclusive future. Zazie has since become a Trekkspert, appearing on panels and podcasts. Link in bio to the piece I wrote for VF, “My Super Sweet Teenage Star Trek Convention.” Live long and prosper! 🖖 #startrek #trekkies
08 Sep 2026
The reaction to the Lindsay Clancy case reveals a huge divide in American life—and not between right and left. Women on both sides of the aisle have expressed sympathy for Lindsay, which some people just can’t understand. But women aren’t saying, We would kill our children. They’re saying, We recognize her life. We know what it is to carry a disproportionate share of the physical and mental labor of raising kids. We know what it is to be drowning while the father of our kids somehow still has room in his life to go on trips and enjoy leisure time with friends. Patrick Clancy testified that while Lindsay was struggling, he took a trip to New York; he went skiing; he went to brunch. That doesn’t make him responsible for what happened. But women recognize the dynamic. (Everyone who knew her said Lindsay was a wonderful mother—including her mother-in-law, who testified for the defense.)
And women know what it is to tell their doctors something is wrong and not be heard. Lindsay repeatedly sought psychiatric help and reported frightening thoughts about harming her children. In roughly four months, she was prescribed 13 different psychiatric medications through more than 30 prescriptions from multiple providers. Whatever you believe about her criminal responsibility, it’s difficult to listen to the testimony of her health care providers and think she was treated responsibly. (More in comments.)
06 Sep 2026
Follower tracking
We have started recording @nancyjosales, but only 1 observation so far — not enough to show a trend yet. Track it weekly →
Download @nancyjosales's data
Everything below is derived from this account, priced on the counts shown. Delivered as CSV by emailed link.
You only pay for rows we deliver. Counts are the maximum available today; if an export comes back smaller, the difference is refunded automatically. Counts as last collected 5 hours, 48 minutes ago.
Tracking
What we have recorded about @nancyjosales over time, and ongoing alerts.
Other reports
Not downloads of this account: they take their own inputs.
Similar accounts
Accounts we track that share hashtags, mentions or bio topics with @nancyjosales.
@guyaroch
131.1K followers
Also mentions @mrmaer
@myleshendrik
177.0K followers
Also mentions @mrmaer
@charlidamelio
40.0M followers
Also mentions @emmanmontalvan
@hayleyheckmann
19.8K followers
Also mentions @emmanmontalvan
@ash_mack
5,594 followers
Also mentions @emmanmontalvan
@cn.impressum.datenschutz
1,023 followers
Bio mentions “ring”
@taylorfrankiepaul
2.6M followers
Bio mentions “secret”
@nogomimedia
4,339 followers
Bio mentions “social”