[rwiggum]

They did mention it. Did you read the article? From the article:

> When reached on their new Twitter account, the top moderators said they wanted to strike a movie deal, but were planning to give any proceeds to charity.

“Them trying to make it look like we are cash grabbing is so dishonest,” the moderators wrote.

[jabberwcky]

In paragraph 27, after spending paragraphs 3-26 documenting the public reaction to a dramatic half-truth revealed in paragraph 2. This is called storytelling. You're likely aware article order is deeply important, but if not, consider reading https://slate.com/technology/2013/06/how-people-read-online-... . The bottom line is most visitors likely only read the half-truth.

[52-6F-62]

Having worked with writers in these very fields, I can assure you they write with the intention that you read the entire article and anything but reading the entire article is an unintended incomplete communication. A protocol broken, if you will. Not a conspiracy to hide the truth. Them potentially maybe donating to charity is not the lede.

[jabberwcky]

That's perhaps unsurprising.. it certainly would be far from the first industry to suffer from institutional blindness to any inconvenient metric that might challenge a self-stated purpose

[52-6F-62]

You could say that about anyone or anything at any time and to any end including wild, unsubstantiated conspiracy theories. I don't think it's very constructive.