>>3698746 , >>3698747 , >>3698749 , >>3698750 , >>3698763 , >>3698764 , >>3698770 , >>3698775
y'all really gotta learn to recognize trolls.
and you should at least be funny if you're going to do that >>3698740
>Date after confirmation?
the date shown is the video title, which can be easily edited.
your cap edits out the actual upload date.
haven't researched this case any further, but do know we've seen plenty attemps at spoopy youtubers playing with videotitles and thumbnails before.
nope
not at all.
there were some fake Q posts way back, but they were quickly rooted out, and crushed anytime anons started getting them back in
i'd say stick to the questions.
those are what's eating at me the most.
how/why make it illegal to even ask about details if it's so damn true and real and documented?
it just makes no sense
>He 'lost it all'
no he didn't, look: they're still ~~astroturfing~~ publishing articles about him to keep him relevant.
<they thought/think we would follow the stars
they are indeed pushing him, as are you for some odd reason(s).
His is not a
> cautionary tale
at all, it doesn't make much sense how you could see him being astroturfed but buy into the narrative that he is "blacklisted"/somehow more credible/badass because of it.
he is a fake, built up in a bubble because tweens will swallow anything
the bubble burst somewhat and they're trying to keep it alive
but… just meh.
he's just a silent fart in a crowd.
sorry, can't help there, but there must be plenty others around who could.
again, in the meantime, you might explain you can't easily access "actual info" because it's illegal to even ask about it.
why is that?
> the very people building these glowing hyper-stimulating portals have become increasingly terrified of them.
they know
"it's not objectifying wamen when we do it"
>What's does trips confirm mean, besides repeating digits?
it means whatever you see into it.
usually just salad dressing used as confirmation bias, but it can be fun when not over-used
it's what strikes me as being most hypocritical.
don't these people usually pshaw women getting nude? see it as patriarchal oppression yaddayadda?
and for marketing/political purposes, too?