Analysis of Evil Influencer: When Exposure Meets a Predator

Evil Influencer: The Jodi Hildebrandt Story was released on Netflix in December 2025. Directed by filmmaker Skye Borgman, the production presents a real and brutal case that took place in the United States and involved therapist Jodi Hildebrandt and digital influencer Ruby Franke. Despite their very different paths, both gained fame and public trust before committing a heinous crime.

Skye Borgman was a strong choice to direct this documentary, as she is an American filmmaker who specializes in investigative and true crime documentaries. She is internationally recognized for transforming real stories into works that force viewers to confront difficult themes such as abuse, identity, and trust.

Among Borgman’s previous works are the documentaries My Father, the BTK Killer, Sins of Our Mother, and Abducted in Plain Sight, all released by Netflix.

Even with the director’s experience, some critics argue that while the production is impactful and carefully presents the facts, it does not explore deeply enough the social mechanisms that allow figures like Hildebrandt to accumulate so much power. Issues such as platform accountability, the psychology behind image-based influence, and the role of the audience are mentioned but could have been examined in greater depth.

Still, many agree that the documentary succeeds in its main goal, which is to confront viewers with the consequences of toxic influence and demonstrate how it can destroy lives.

The real story behind the documentary is deeply disturbing.

Ruby Franke was a YouTuber known for content centered on motherhood and family life, and many parents followed her because they related to her everyday struggles.

Over time, Ruby met her so-called mentor and self-proclaimed therapist, Jodi Hildebrandt. That relationship eventually led Ruby to subject her family to an abusive discipline system that quickly escalated into outright torture.

The case came to public attention when one of Franke’s children, visibly weakened and malnourished, escaped from the home where they lived in Ivins, Utah. After walking barefoot across dry terrain under the region’s intense heat, the child rang the doorbells of three different houses seeking help. Only one resident responded, and after seeing the child’s injuries and physical condition, contacted the police.

The shocking discovery of the conditions in which the children were living led to the arrest of Franke and Hildebrandt on charges of aggravated child abuse. The abuse included food and water deprivation as well as repeated and severe physical punishment.

In court, Franke eventually pleaded guilty to multiple charges and received a sentence that can range from 4 to 30 years. Hildebrandt received a similar sentence.

This toxic relationship between the two women, which led a mother to abuse her own children, may not have developed in the same way without one key factor: the exposure of children on social media.

There is a dangerously naive belief that posting photos and videos of children online is simply a modern version of a family photo album. The internet, however, is not your relatives flipping through pictures. It is a public display, a permanent archive, and even worse, a map.

When an adult turns a child’s daily life into content, they are doing more than sharing something cute. They are leaving clues. Names, schools, neighborhoods, schedules, preferences, friendships, and vulnerabilities all become easily accessible information. For many types of predators, this is an ideal scenario.

For years, authorities and child protection organizations have warned that images and personal information about children can be collected, copied, altered, and redistributed in spaces most parents never imagine. This includes networks and forums dedicated to abuse and exploitation.

The FBI has issued warnings encouraging caregivers to be cautious when posting images of children online, specifically because of the risk of misuse and the ease with which photos can be repurposed by criminals.

The path to a predator is not always a stranger sending a direct message. Often, it begins with something seemingly harmless. An audience learns where a child goes, who they spend time with, what they fear, and what their routine looks like. They learn about family dynamics and habits. This information can enable grooming, sextortion, abuse, and even kidnapping.

So how does this connect to the case of Jodi Hildebrandt and Ruby Franke, and why does this relationship matter even though the primary abuse occurred inside the home?

Ruby Franke became famous by turning her own family into a product. She ran the YouTube channel “8 Passengers” and used it to turn the daily lives of her six children into a public narrative similar to a reality show. Later, she aligned herself with Jodi Hildebrandt and the belief system Hildebrandt created, an almost cult-like structure known as “ConneXions/Moms of Truth.” This partnership intensified the control and punishment Ruby imposed on her children, ultimately leading to a horrifying outcome. Two children were found severely malnourished and injured inside the mansion where Jodi lived.

The argument is not that online exposure directly caused the abuse. The issue is more complex and more unsettling. Exposure creates an environment in which a child becomes a character, and characters are often granted fewer rights than real people.

When a child’s life is treated as content, it becomes normal for strangers to comment on their body, behavior, morality, and punishments. Audiences, and sometimes parents themselves, become conditioned to view intimacy as something marketable. When toxic authority figures like Jodi enter the picture, the family is already used to functioning under constant external judgment. This does not only increase the risk of predators. It also increases the risk of psychological control, isolation, and manipulation, because the child grows up believing that being watched, evaluated, and corrected by strangers is normal.

The Franke and Hildebrandt case is a stark reminder that the danger to a child can come from both outside and inside the home, sometimes at the hands of the very people who are supposed to protect them.

This case left the public stunned not only by its brutality, but also by the revelation that the children, malnourished and restrained, suffered with the permission and, even worse, the direct involvement of their own mother, Ruby.

Ruby Franke started her channel in 2015 and eventually reached 2.5 million subscribers and more than one billion views. As her audience grew, many began to see her not simply as an ordinary mother sharing daily routines, but as an authority on parenting. This carefully constructed public image of the “perfect mother,” reinforced by constant praise in the comments, created a psychological distortion in which external validation fueled her self-esteem. The approval of thousands of followers gradually replaced the opinions of family members and close friends. This dynamic can strengthen narcissistic tendencies and emotional blindness, making a person more likely to justify and normalize extreme and unacceptable behavior.

When Ruby met Jodi Hildebrandt, what began as a professional relationship evolved into a close partnership, sometimes even viewed with suspicion regarding a possible romantic involvement. Hildebrandt eventually moved in with the family, began collaborating on Ruby’s channel content, and gradually manipulated her through a distorted narrative centered on discipline, guilt, and “true obedience.”

In other words, the situation became fertile ground for psychological captivity. Ruby allowed herself to sink deeper into what Hildebrandt offered: rigid, so-called spiritual rules about child behavior and discipline enforced under uncompromising authority.

Criminologists who study cases of abuse linked to cults or extremist authority structures warn that social isolation, group reinforcement, and emotional dependency are three key factors that can lead one individual to submit to another, even when it goes against their moral and ethical instincts. In Ruby and Jodi’s case, both became increasingly isolated from family criticism, especially since Ruby was already emotionally distant from her husband. Together, they reinforced a corrupted belief system in which extreme punishment, isolation of the children, and absolute obedience were reframed as “healing” or “proper discipline.”

This does not mean that Ruby’s content directly caused the abuse, but it does suggest that the internal pressure between her idealized public image and her real life reinforced abusive behavior.

Adding to this was the religious dimension that permeated both Hildebrandt’s life and her messaging. Concepts of sin and discipline were used to justify severe punishments as a form of “spiritual correction.” In this context, Ruby, already emotionally positioned as the unquestioned leader of her family, may have accepted these ideas without normal social and moral filters, replacing common sense with an extreme ideology.

Regarding Jodi, the documentary suggests that she was a victim of sexual abuse at a young age, according to videos in which she herself addresses the subject.

The production Ruby & Jodi: A Cult of Sin and Influence includes testimonies from people close to Hildebrandt, including her own niece, who describe traumatic experiences involving Jodi long before the events surrounding the Franke family. Some accounts highlight her controlling, punitive, and oppressive personality, suggesting that rigid and authoritarian behavior had been part of her life for many years.

These accounts align with a well-documented clinical pattern. When someone experiences abuse or violence, especially during childhood or adolescence, trauma can be internalized in ways that distort perceptions of safety, authority, and affection. Sexual abuse in particular is associated with long-lasting effects on identity formation, emotional regulation, and interpersonal relationships.

In Hildebrandt’s case, the way she constructed an identity as a family counselor, moral authority, and spiritual and emotional guide may have been shaped by this traumatic experience. This does not excuse her actions, but it may help explain how someone who internalizes trauma can go on to recreate it.

Other testimonies reveal that Hildebrandt relied on an extremely rigid moral and spiritual framework, insisting that certain practices, harsh punishments, isolation, and deprivation were not only acceptable, but necessary to correct “mistakes” or “sins.” Untreated trauma often leads individuals to believe they know better because they believe they understand suffering.

This helps explain how Hildebrandt managed to convince not only Ruby, but also clients and followers, that extreme approaches were legitimate forms of discipline or correction. In her own words and in her development as a coach, abuse and authority were framed as expressions of love and as a way to fight “inner evil.” In this sense, past trauma did not merely shape her psychology; it evolved into a belief system that redefined suffering and punishment as positive forces.

When such beliefs are taught to others, as happened with Franke, they become systems that justify abuse under the guise of help or moral correction.

This combination almost inevitably led to a tragic outcome involving child victims who had no means of escaping such a distorted dynamic.

Ultimately, what happened in this case cannot be reduced to a moment of madness. It was the result of a complex interaction between digital fame, the pursuit of validation, external authority, and distorted beliefs, reinforced by an intimate relationship with someone who held extreme views on discipline and behavior.

It is worth the popcorn and the reflection because Evil Influencer touches on something deeply personal: trust.

Trust in authority figures, in polished narratives, and in people who present themselves as guides, experts, or role models. The question is not only “how was this possible?” but also “how often do we normalize signs of abuse when they are disguised as morality, faith, discipline, or likes?”

It is a documentary that provokes and unsettles, but it also encourages reflection.

And you, have you ever followed an influencer because their advice seemed great, only to be disappointed when you discovered who they really were?