>>188368
I don't think this tells the whole story. A lot of it is presented as fact, but there's no evidence shown for some of the biggest claims, like who actually posted the leak or whether there was coordinated blackmail. It also feels like a lot of assumptions are being made based on vague posts and speculation. Just because people were talking about someone or arguing with them doesn't automatically mean they organized harassment or were behind everything that happened. Without screenshots or proof for each claim, it's hard to know what's actually true versus what's just people filling in the gaps. I think it's better to be careful before treating a timeline like this as established fact. Weirdo