I dislike that FuckJerry was involved in Netflix's documentary and am happy to see them facing backlash over not just the Fyre Festival but their history of stealing jokes. But in regards to Fyre, I didn't really feel the need to see them face greater judgment (maybe that means their purported influence over the Netflix doc worked?). They were paid to shill and market for Fyre, but what's the indication that they knew that McFarland was acting fraudulently? How does their role make them significantly more complicit in the fraud than the photographer, who got paid for the viral glamorous Fyre ad he shot, and who ended up as a producer for Hulu's doc?

Maybe it comes down to how much influence you think social media has, in this incident and in general? I liked the Hulu doc, but found its focus and commentary on social media influencers (including the criticism of FuckJerry) as not being interesting enough to merit the time and weight it was given. Yes, it's inarguable that Fyre seems to have gotten a lot of Instagram views. But how much effect did that have on McFarland's ability to basically run a Ponzi scheme? My impression was that McFarland had already talked himself into Manhattan financial circles, and the firms who invested millions in Fyre/Fyre Festival were fools, but not necessarily the kind swayed by social media hype (i.e. similar to the backers of Theranos).

Undoubtedly, rich kids use and are influenced by social media. But McFarland already seemed to have enough of a network (he and Ja Rule had collaborated well before FuckJerry got involved) to convince enough rich kids to pay for tickets. To be fair, though, I don't use Instagram for anything except to check up on friends, so I'm admittedly ignorant about how influential Instagrammers can be. But Fyre seemed to be very much the result of McFarland's ambition and lack of morals, and his ability to convince naive people to work towards his goals against all logical odds. FuckJerry's support felt mostly tangential.