Rage.Of.Olympus
Senior Member
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Prove it.
This would be easy to do. They knowingly or unknowingly published information that painted a false narrative. This false narrative, would by the standard of any reasonable adult, be obviously detrimental to the mental wealth being and perhaps safety of this kid. We can create a time-line that is incredibly thorough with an internet connection.
For example, CNN published a false narrative despite the full answer being out in the open: Degenrate on twitter with blue check
mark who thinks he knows anything about oppression despite probably never leaving Seattle, retweets said article and calls for the kid to be doxxed. This is a hypothetical example.
And I say unknowingly, because it doesn’t matter. It would be negligence. All the information was publicly available, and seeing as how we know you have to be at least literate and able to use google to work at CNN, 100% they knew what they were doing. Which is why they will settle for millions rather than have internal communication published. Like academia as seen through the grievance studies, there is a growing rot within media.