Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
Lamestream media continues to take Amber Turd's side
Fire_Marshall_Bill
Member, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 24,495 
in Tug Tavern
I've seen three or four articles to this effect.
They won't let go of the leftist, metoo, victim narrative.
SHE LOST YOU WOKE MORONS. DO YOU UNDERSTAND HOW COURT WORKS? SHE'S A LYING, NARCISSISTIC SNAKE
They won't let go of the leftist, metoo, victim narrative.
SHE LOST YOU WOKE MORONS. DO YOU UNDERSTAND HOW COURT WORKS? SHE'S A LYING, NARCISSISTIC SNAKE
Comments
No news can change that
For proof check out the wam
The Washington Post and Taylor Lorenz Lie to Smear (and Maybe Deplatform) Law YouTubers Who Got the Amber Heard Defamation Story Right
—Ace
Screenshot (2285).png
Do you know what the "Adpocalypse" was?
There were two.
The Adpocalypses were brought down by the leftwing legacy media. They noticed that their own advertising revenues were sharply declining, while the advertising revenues being collected by independent, non-traditional media figures -- such as YouTubers -- was skyrocketing.
They decided to do something about that.
They decided to take out the competition.
The first Adpocalypse was an attempt by the Wall Street Journal to make advertising on non-approved legacy media outlets dangerous for corporations by smearing YouTubers like PewdeePie as racists. That resulted in YouTube imposing a censorship regime, and advertisers fleeing the platform.
The second one was when gay blogger Carlos Maza attempted to take down Steven Crowder, alleging that YouTube approved of homophobia. Again, more censorship, less ad revenue.
Now Taylor Lorenz and the Washington Post are attempting a third adpocalypse. They're attempting to take out rivals to the leftwing legacy media -- specifically, YouTubers who sided more with Johnny Depp during the Amber Heard defamation trial. The leftwing media, of course, had uncritically championed Amber Heard, as they'd championed all #MeToo allegations, #BelievingAllWomen without asking for any evidence.
In fact, the defamatory opinion piece Depp sued Heard for appeared in the Washington Post. They just added a stingy "Note" to their defamation.
So Lorenz is now attempting to paint it as dangerous for people to openly question #MeToo allegations on YouTube, and to suggest there's something wrong with non-legacy-media outlets making money off of a major media story. There's nothing wrong with the Washington Post making money off it, of course -- because they take the proper leftwing view of things.
But people like Rekieta or YellowFlash or That Umbrella Guy, the people who thought that Amber Heard was lying? Which, of course, a jury found to be the case?
They're dangerous and they shouldn't be allowed to make money off it. And damnit, YouTube has got to control who is allowed to make money from these news events!
By the way: The entire Depp/Heard story was already heavily censored by YouTube. Videos would be demonetized -- denied advertising -- if they discussed it all. Because of this, YouTubers were forced to resort to the childish tactic of referring to Depp as "The Pirate Guy" and Heard as "the Aqua Lady" to avoid censorship and demonetization. They had to avoid saying the names of the people they were talking about.
No, I'm serious.
But that's not enough for Taylor Lorenz and The Washington Post.
Either they have to declare "The Aqua Lady is telling the truth and The Pirate Guy is an abuser," or they must be deplatformed!
And Lorenz, in making the case that only she, a nobody, barely-educated semiliterate wannabe influencer who pretends to be a tweenager online and gets away with it because she is effectively developmentally delayed, should be allowed to weigh in on the Depp-Heard trial, and that actual trial lawyers like Rikieta and LegalBytes should not be so allowed, is on a scorched earth campaign to make them toxic to advertisers.