• treadful@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    15
    ·
    2 days ago

    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.

    • cowfodder@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      22
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      1 day ago

      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?

        • cowfodder@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          12
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          1 day ago

          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.

    • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 day ago

      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.