Yeah! Why would the agency that investigates online child sex abuse be interested in chat logs that potentially contain information about online child sex abuse?
It doesn’t say that? It mentions a former employee was a groomer. But it also doesn’t mention why company chat logs would have anything to do with that.
I would suggest looking at the videos in the tweets. It’s not clear exactly what is posted because it goes by too quickly, but you can definitely see that a lot of it is sexual and if some of it is CSAM, I wouldn’t exactly be shocked based on what I could see.
Are you seeing something treadful and I aren’t seeing? Because I’m with him, I don’t see what you’re referring to. I only see one tweet in the article, and all it says is:
I have reported what I found and my concerns to the authorities @FBI. Hopefully they will look into these MrBeast Telegram Company Chats Logs and other concerns.
I don’t see any videos, nor any clarification in the article as to what the chat logs are at all.
That’s the tweet that should’ve been in the article. I dunno why the author chose a tweet that doesn’t say anything to include in their article that also doesn’t say anything.
Do you think that grooming doesn’t fall under child sex abuse? Do you think that the FBI wouldn’t be interested in logs that may show prior knowledge of this abuse and would contradict prior statements that MrBeast was unaware? Do you think if he was aware of this abuse and didn’t say anything that this wouldn’t count as covering up child sex abuse, aka being an accessory to a crime?
Then what did you say? There seems to be some kind of major disconnect between you, the implications of the linked article, and why the FBI could be involved.
Yeah! Why would the agency that investigates online child sex abuse be interested in chat logs that potentially contain information about online child sex abuse?
It doesn’t say that? It mentions a former employee was a groomer. But it also doesn’t mention why company chat logs would have anything to do with that.
I would suggest looking at the videos in the tweets. It’s not clear exactly what is posted because it goes by too quickly, but you can definitely see that a lot of it is sexual and if some of it is CSAM, I wouldn’t exactly be shocked based on what I could see.
Are you seeing something treadful and I aren’t seeing? Because I’m with him, I don’t see what you’re referring to. I only see one tweet in the article, and all it says is:
I don’t see any videos, nor any clarification in the article as to what the chat logs are at all.
https://x.com/RosannaPansino/status/1850634540563542467
That’s the tweet that should’ve been in the article. I dunno why the author chose a tweet that doesn’t say anything to include in their article that also doesn’t say anything.
It was.
It isn’t. That’s a different tweet than what the article has.
https://fedia.io/media/af/1c/af1c1fcf508b4ad256a6332925198dbfa85134b17639e1d9f554c188b0296475.png
I literally went there from the article, my dude.
Do you think that grooming doesn’t fall under child sex abuse? Do you think that the FBI wouldn’t be interested in logs that may show prior knowledge of this abuse and would contradict prior statements that MrBeast was unaware? Do you think if he was aware of this abuse and didn’t say anything that this wouldn’t count as covering up child sex abuse, aka being an accessory to a crime?
Didn’t say or suggest any of that…
Then what did you say? There seems to be some kind of major disconnect between you, the implications of the linked article, and why the FBI could be involved.