very convenient that a lot of bot accounts suddenly follows an account for people trying to amplify the accessibility of information of a trial that is suspiciously low profile considering the people involved.
if you listen to trueanon they had to open multiple overflow rooms becuase press agents from all over the world are lining up hours early to get it, it's not low profile.
I just opened the front pages of CNN, Fox News, BBC News and NBC News and found the Maxwell case either completely uncovered on the front pages, opinion-only coverage, coverage of only this particular Twitter story, tabloid nonsense or coverage buried so far down the page in a sidebar it may as well not be there.
That seems pretty poor to me for such a high profile case.
You can pay money for followers. You don't need the means of a nation state or shadowy cabal. I'm right there with you on the Maxwell/Epstein story being far more significant though.
But an analogy is, if you have a legitimate criticism of the security state/"deep state" (a phrase I use and have no aversion to), it's not useful to buy into Qanon nonsense just because they criticize some of the same people. I know nothing directly about "patriot one" so I'm not saying it's Qanon level nonsense, but I'll defer to TrueAnon that it was probably counter-productive as a source. And making that judgment doesn't put anyone in league with the devil.
Just follow better informed and more scrupulous sources. TrueAnon are flippant and mischievous in ways that diminish them slightly, but on the whole, they're excellent. And they're at the trial every day.
it is in fact very easy to not fully believe conspiracy theories, those who do go all in with those are not the primary demographic that enjoys thinking about conspiracy theories. It is primarily an activity practiced by people who are capable of entertaining wild ideas without believing them as truth, aka skeptics. I never understood the massive public stigma around being able to have a wild imagination but stay grounded regardless.
Nobody prominent is involved. This case is so larded with misplaced expectations. We as of yet have no real proof any prominent people besides Prince Andrew may be tangentially implicated and no reason to think Maxwell has any compromising information if they were. And even if both those assumptions are true there's no reason they'd be pertinent to her trial. Her trial which is happening likely because the prosecutor couldn't force a plea.
I don't know how you operate, but when I hear that the royal family is implicated, I immediately start to wonder who else is involved and not dismiss the case all together.
Again. Zero proof. Think about all the dots to connect for it to be a murder and how few for it to be a suicide. He had absolutely every reason to be suicidal and the evidence says it's very likely. For it to be murder we have to assumed a giant chain of events for which we have proof of none.
* Very powerful people procured his services for something illegal <- Maybe, no proof
* Epstein had incriminating evidence on those powerful people proving their illegal activities <- Maybe, no proof, requires above unproven point to be true
* Powerful people knew what evidence he had, believed he would leverage it to reduce his punishment <- Maybe, no proof, requires all above unproven points to be true
* Powerful people hired ninjas to invade the detention center, evade all the cameras (all but one camera was working and recorded the approaches to his cell), murder Epstein to make it look exactly like a suicide, leave no traces, no witnesses <- Maybe, getting pretty ludicrous by now
Not in the US. The US audience doesn't really care about the UK royal family.
And in the UK, the media is constrained by stronger libel laws such that they'll sit on their haunches in terms of reporting on things in the case until they are considered factual enough to withstand a UK libel suit. Allegations thrown about in a foreign court of law don't meet that bar.
We don't know if there are prominent people involved in every case in every courtroom in the world. Maybe Bill Clinton has been stalking Bushwick stealing bikes for the last 5 years. Probably not though. Meanwhile the most recent ex-president is directly implicated in trying to upend democracy and lying about deliberately spreading covid at the White House.
Okay, then there is no reason to ban this twitter user at all, because there are plenty of ways to follow this trial and have the public decide for themselves what they think.