This was honestly a terrible article. /r/antiwork is a fine subreddit. Lots of good content. Social media is not now, and never has been, a genuinely viable way to organize. At best, organizers can use it as an auxiliary to spread info etc. This is what /r/antiwork was good for. But people tried to use it to actually organize. No. Organize in your community. Spread the word on social media.

The NYT's basic thesis -- this wasn't going to make the leap to real organizing -- was predictable even before the "collapse" (it still has 1.8m subscribers). Sorry if that bursts anyone's bubble. Sharing content and consciousness-raising can lead to organizing, but how people were going about it on /r/antiwork was not realistic.

Of course, that's to be expected. It was a lightning-rod for discontented workers across. Almost none of whom have any organizing experience. It's difficult to make good organizing decisions when you have no organizing experience.

The NYT's way of exploring this, however, just amounts to a hit piece. After all, countless people reported standing up to their bosses in that subreddit and getting raises and improved working conditions. It does foment worker action and it was encouraging people to start standing up in their workplaces in a disorganized way.

The fact that the NYT didn't cover this aspect and just focused on "quitting your job" and "hating your job" speaks a lot to their "journalistic integrity" in publishing this piece.