By admin 
Social media personality Amanda Hirsch, the driving force behind the widely popular "Not Skinny But Not Fat" podcast and co-host of Hulu’s "Get Real" podcast, has issued a heartfelt apology after facing intense backlash for a sponsored post that linked the outcome of the Lindsay Clancy trial to a betting platform. The controversy ignited on Friday when, shortly after a mistrial was declared in the Clancy case, Hirsch shared a since-deleted Instagram Reel announcing the development. Her caption, intended as a partnership promotion with the betting platform Polymarket, read: "On Polymarket it was predicted the verdict would be Not Guilty. Are you surprised? #Polymarketpartner." This seemingly flippant remark, juxtaposing a tragic legal proceeding with a commercial endorsement, triggered an immediate and overwhelmingly negative response from her followers and the wider online community.
The reaction was described as "swift and brutal," with screenshots of the offending post circulating rapidly across social media platforms, ensuring its digital permanence despite Hirsch’s attempt to remove it. The fallout continued into Saturday as Hirsch attempted to resume her usual content schedule on Instagram Stories, only to find the criticism intensifying. Her representative, when approached by Variety for comment on Friday, offered no immediate response, leaving Hirsch to navigate the escalating crisis on her own.
In a public apology posted to her Instagram grid on Sunday – a post notably featuring disabled comments, a move often interpreted as an attempt to control the narrative and prevent further public criticism – Hirsch expressed profound regret for her actions. "Posting about the Lindsay Clancy trial in the same breath as a brand partnership was completely insensitive, wrong, and out of character for me," she stated, her words conveying a sense of shock at her own lapse in judgment. "I should have known better, and I feel sick that I didn’t see that in the moment." Hirsch elaborated on the personal impact the case had on her, revealing that as a mother, she had been deeply invested in and followed the trial "constantly." This immersion, she explained, led to a complete loss of perspective, blurring the lines between her personal engagement with the case and her professional obligations as a content creator. "I became so consumed by the trial that I completely lost perspective and didn’t stop to think about how grossly inappropriate it was to discuss something this tragic in that context."
Hirsch did not shy away from acknowledging the severity of her mistake, admitting, "I made a terrible judgment call and I feel so fucking awful about that." She further recognized the inadequacy of simply deleting the post, stating, "I know deleting it doesn’t erase it. Believe me, I’m horrified by the choice I made and please know this lapse in judgment does not represent who I am as a person. I am so deeply sorry." This apology, while attempting to convey sincerity, was met with a mix of skepticism and continued criticism from many who felt the initial post demonstrated a fundamental lack of empathy and understanding of the gravity of the situation.
The context surrounding Hirsch’s Polymarket partnership is particularly illuminating. Just a few days prior to the ill-fated post, on September 4th, Hirsch had shared a more nuanced perspective on the Lindsay Clancy trial on her Instagram. This earlier post, which had also necessitated turning off comments due to intense public debate, revealed Hirsch’s conflicted feelings about the case, which had evolved into a significant true crime phenomenon. She had expressed compassion for Lindsay Clancy while simultaneously highlighting what she perceived as "major issues with the investigation." Critically, Hirsch had also pushed back against what she termed "outlandish, unfounded accusations against Patrick Clancy," Lindsay’s husband, who had become the target of conspiracy theories accusing him of murdering their three children, despite Lindsay’s own statements implicating herself.
In her earlier post, Hirsch had emphasized the tragic loss of the Clancy children, stating, "Three babies were killed. They had their entire lives ahead of them. Yes, their mother was very sick. That is devastating. But it wasn’t their fault. They were strangled to death methodically and left to die in the basement." Her intention, it appeared, was to keep the focus on the victims and their profound loss, urging her audience to maintain this perspective amidst the burgeoning public fascination with the case. She articulated her concerns about the societal implications of the public’s reaction, noting, "I don’t know what should happen to Lindsay Clancy, But the fan base, the GoFundMe, the way people are rallying behind her almost like she’s a celebrity genuinely scares me a little bit about where we are as a society. I just don’t want our compassion to somehow turn into excusing or minimizing what happened to her children." This earlier stance, which highlighted her concern for responsible discourse, made her subsequent Polymarket partnership post appear even more jarring and out of step with her stated values. The comments on that earlier post, though now closed, are reportedly filled with criticism directed at her for the Polymarket sponsorship, indicating how quickly public opinion can shift.
The incident involving Amanda Hirsch sheds a harsh light on the burgeoning and largely unregulated world of prediction markets, exemplified by platforms like Polymarket and Kalshi. These platforms, which allow users to bet on the outcomes of future events, including legal proceedings and reality television competitions, have increasingly come under scrutiny. In the spring of 2026, Variety reported on how both Kalshi and Polymarket had preemptively revealed the winner of "Survivor’s" 50th season, a development that drew sharp criticism from the show’s host and executive producer, Jeff Probst. Probst voiced his strong disapproval, telling Variety, "They have figured out a way to capitalize on [the show]. It doesn’t sit well with me as a human. I get it – they built a great business. They don’t care." This earlier controversy highlights a pattern of prediction markets capitalizing on entertainment and potentially sensitive events without apparent regard for the ethical implications or the desires of the creators involved.
The mistrial in the Lindsay Clancy case, declared due to a single holdout juror who reportedly did not agree with a "not guilty by reason of insanity" verdict, has also ignited new waves of speculation. This development has fueled conspiracy theories, with some online commentators now questioning whether the dissenting juror may have also been involved in prediction markets, potentially placing bets on the trial’s outcome. Such theories, while speculative, underscore the growing unease surrounding the intersection of financial speculation and deeply sensitive public events, and the potential for these platforms to influence or be perceived as influencing public discourse and even judicial processes. The unbridled nature of these markets, often operating in a regulatory gray area, raises significant questions about accountability and the potential for misuse, especially when applied to matters of life, death, and severe mental health crises. The case of Amanda Hirsch serves as a stark reminder of the delicate balance required when navigating the digital public square, particularly when commercial interests collide with profound human tragedy.
