Someone is sick of his shit
"All you're doing is talking about how much you hate yourself on stream, and you don't even have the screen wall set up. I mean, you're telling people that you're depressed, that you're sad..."
View attachment 3828393
Disagree on this one. It's hard to tell as I believe the only time we've heard the ex-fiance's voice on stream was when they flew out to Northern Ireland to give that statement on stream about the SWATing. [
Raw Unarchived Stream] 52:50 for a voice comparison.
It's hard to tell because we're comparing someone talking directly into a high quality microphone as opposed to the microphone picking up a voice across the room.
Keffals does have a brother I believe, it could be him?
On a side note however: I think we all knew this but confirmed that that screen was blocking view of a door behind it. Keffals forgot to pull it all the way out.
View attachment 3829029
I'd imagine today as the KeffalsUpdates account posted saying how Keffals was live now (about 3 hours ago). Guessing whoever on mic talked them out of streaming.
Is that really what he's saying? To me, it sounds more like "you know you don't have to stream while sad", but it could go either way tbh
They do mention it, just not by name:
They essentially say dropping the Kiwi Farms had negative consequences, but not dropping them may have resulted in different negative consquences.
Reading between the lines here:
"[keeping KF]
could cause us to experience
significant adverse political, business, and reputational consequences with customers, employees, suppliers, government entities, and other third parties. ... We may also experience other adverse political, business and reputational consequences with prospective and current customers, employees, suppliers, and others related to the activities of our paying and free customers, especially if such hostile, offensive, or inappropriate use is highly publicized."
vs
"[dropping KF]
may harm our
brand and reputation. ... We received
significant adverse feedback for these decisions
from those concerned about our ability to pass judgment on our customers and the users of our network and products, or to censor them by limiting their access to our products, and"
So:
- They got threats from employees (makes sense, lot of them are trannies)
- They got threats from governments (this might be apropos Christchurch, however)
- They went into much more detail about the former, as if they're trying to justify it in detail.
- "Those concerned" are just randos seething/EFF
Of greater interest:
[re: keeping] "... We are aware of
some potential customers that have
indicated their decision to not subscribe to our products
was impacted, at least in part, by the actions or potential actions of certain of our paying and free customers.
[re: dropping] " ... we are aware of
potential customers who
decided not to subscribe to our products
because of this."
I don't know why, but the latter uses much more direct language. Either:
- it's because they didn't actually lose any potential customers from keeping it ("decision ... was impacted, at least in part" vs "decided not to subscribe ... because of this") so they have to use vague language, or
- they want to make it seem more serious so the big guys won't force them in the future
It
is securities fraud to lie in these documents ("following escalating, direct threats towards individuals"), so you can report it to the SEC
here if you care. The phrasing is vague enough that it's probably fine, but it might be interesting if the SEC asks them what's going on and they send a formal response covered by FOIA.
It's worth reading into this autistically because they make lawyers prepare it, so the information content is higher than random blog posts.
