OP was presumably not asking literally because they thought this was the best way to find out, they were doing so rhetorically to point out that Andrew Tate is not a person of any real significance or mainstream notoriety, who has garnered a weird amount of attention from a tiny set of terminally online people.
Basically, talking about him should be beneath the New Yorker, and the choice to publish about him drags a weird little pocket of the deep internet into the mainstream, in a way that makes us all worse off.
Basically, talking about him should be beneath the New Yorker, and the choice to publish about him drags a weird little pocket of the deep internet into the mainstream, in a way that makes us all worse off.