Seems there's some foofaraw about Twitter's blue tickmarks.
Thing is... Twitter management is now taking a position that's flatly contradicted by their actions in revoking Milo's blue tickmark ("It's still verifiability him, but we've decided we don't like him anymore, so we can no longer vouch for his identity"). Same kind of trap Google gets into with censoring YouTube vids with "dangerous" content except when they're on channels that really rake in the ad revenue.
In other news, Roy Moore is suddenly accused of sexual misconduct. Not only is he now Trump's critter - wait, didn't Trump endorse his opponent with the comic-book villain name, in the primary? - but there are some considerable oddities in the reporting.
In particular: four accusers and thirty sources. What does that even mean? That the four accusers have, among them, told their stories to thirty people, and those thirty are being counted as independent sources? That makes no sense to the sane... but I'm acutely aware that there are Lunatics out there who firmly believe that if you tell the same story to three people that makes it true. ("Of course it's true! Just ask anyone! Ask any of these three people; they'll all tell you that I told them the same thing!")
Neo-Neocon has a similar thought:
By the way, the fact that some accusers get other people to say that the accuser had told them about the abuse long ago isn’t definitive, either, although it helps to indicate that the accusations are more likely to be true. But I have seen how often people can get friends and family to corroborate lies, if all are motivated towards a certain desired end.
I would add that "get other people to say that the accuser had told them about the abuse long ago" doesn't mean that they were told about the abuse long ago, though that's a possibility. The persuasion could be of the form: "You remember what I told you thirty years ago, right? Of course you do! How could you forget? Let me refresh your memory on the details! ..." The friends and family need not even share in the motivation; they need only lack full confidence of their memories of long-ago events. It's another flavor of gaslighting.
Additional: Nothing here should be taken as an indication that I approve of Moore; from what little I know, he seems to be a worse-than-average clown, and by his own recent account he's a creepy ephebophile. But we should be suspicious of conveniently-timed accusations, especially when they have the appearance of coordination.