MovieChat Forums > Amber Heard Discussion > Details are emerging supporting the beli...

Details are emerging supporting the belief that the internet was rigged against her.


A new study described the targeted online abuse of Heard and her supporters as “one of the worst cases of platform manipulation” ever seen on Twitter.


This is the least surprising news. The sheer Depp-bias online was outrageous. Beyond a normal distritubution, and no it's not because it was an open-and-shut, black & white case. It was all orchestrated.

So many people fell victim to the narrative manipulation. Pied-pipered.

https://en.as.com/latest_news/bot-sentinel-research-shows-the-extent-of-amber-heard-twitter-hate-after-johnny-depp-trial-n/

reply

LOL. You are so naive.

I’m "team no one" on that case because they are both idiots. But the way woke press try to convince themselves that something was "orchestrated" is so funny.

There are countless reports from woke lunatics themselves that all their family and co-coworkers were on Team Depp and hated Heard.

Accept it and move on. Depp is an old fart that left his aging partner for gold-digger. And it bite him in the arse. Heard is dangerous sociopath who used MeToo movement for her revenge against Depp. And it bite her in the arse.

Case closed.

reply

Both are terrible people, couldn't agree more.

reply

The evidence was clear. Hence why no-one believes her (regardless of the internet).

reply

What about the evidence that found Johnny guilty in a previous court?

reply

You mean the case against, not Amber Heard, but The Sun newspaper (a *Murdoch* right-wing newspaper with a long history of lies, including its horrendous headline about Hillsborough "The Truth", that stigmatised the people of Liverpool for decades?), specifically the pieces composed by Dan Wooton, the right-wing, transphobic and anti-mask GB News contributor? You mean the case which was about The Sun's right to publish a story based on the information it had at the time, rather than whether the source of the 'facts' was or wasn't fabricating them? You mean the case presided by the white, upper-class, privately-educated English judge whose son had a connection to the Murdoch media, and which was heard in the *notoriously* corrupt and biased British judicial system (by the way, I'm a legally-qualified Englishman, so, of ANYONE knows what the fuck they're talking about here when they speak of how corrupt the British judicial system is, I think it's me 😠).

Thank goodness that part-Black, child abuse survivor Johnny Depp was *FINALLY* able to get justice in a transparent open-doors US court case, presided by a *female* *minority* judge, and a *jury* of seven *diverse* individuals, as opposed to one snooty, white, male and *corrupt* English judge. Fuck white people. Fuck English people. Fuck British corruption. And fuck a spoiled little blonde, blue-eyed, Anglo-American white girl who is a fan of *arch-right-winger* Ayn Rand, has a history of making 'jokes' about immigrants, grew up hunting/fetishing *guns* with her daddy, was caught on camera being very mean to her own mother, has a surrogate child (a clear act of anti-feminist exploitation), has a *history* of abusing other partners, including former lesbian lovers, and is caught on a *very clear* audio recording chiding Johnny Depp for walking away from an argument instead of engaging her in a fight. 😠

"I did not punch you, I was hitting you" 😠

reply

Interesting but I'm not sure it proves anything unless some (presumably paid) agency can be identified that coordinated these attacks - otherwise it could be described as the usual trollish behaviour of some parts of twitter.

reply

I'm not siding with her but there is No doubt about that. The worst part is that the jury saw and heard every bit of it because they weren't sequestered. Definitely influenced the verdict.

reply

In which case they would have also seen all the MSM articles in the NYT and Independent, which exclusively took *her* side, and moreover, unlike a bunch of randomers on social media, these were written by powerful people claiming to be *experts*, so if you're right about the jury not being sequestered, that *should* have worked in Amber's *favour*. 🤷‍♂️

Presumably the jury came to an alternative verdict based on other factors, like, say, the FACTS and the CREDIBILITY of the WITNESS TESTIMONY. 🤷‍♂️

reply

Nonsense. And you know it.

reply

Mainstream media was clearly biased in favor of Heard.

reply

I am sure her PR team is behind the "study".

reply

And how does someone siding with one or the other sway a jury?

reply

The Jury wasn't sequestered.

reply

I trust the shared verdict of 7 diverse individuals, sequestered or not, over *one* white, privately-educated Englishman with his head up his ass. 😠 You think judges are 'sequestered'/aren't corrupt/aren't influenced by the media? 🤦‍♂️🙄

reply

Douchebagsayswhat?

reply

Don't respond to Harvey...Sin. This account is some type of AI experiment, not a real person.

reply

Lol, yeah, that's pretty much why he got the response he did. Everything he posts seems like bullshit.

reply

Actually, Harvey makes a fair point here. If you actually followed the whole Depp/Heard saga that is, and you aren't just responding to things on the front page.

reply

How sophisticated do you think AI experiments are?

Also, it's a sad state of society when we can no longer trust that was are speaking to another human-being...but I guess that's precisely what an AI system would say, right? 🙄🤦‍♂️

reply

Your posts are unsophisticated and regurgitate ideas that sound fed to a computer. Don't flatter your programming team.

reply

Uh-huh. What does it say of you that you're arguing with an 'AI system'? Clearly, you know I'm not an AI system, which is why you're taking the time to try to insult me. If I were an 'AI system', you'd be wasting your time.

Also, I don't see what's so sophisticated about *your* posts. At least *my* posts engage in ideas. *Your* posts engage in gaslighting and glib dismissals of any ideas you're unwilling to accept/engage with. Much easier to simply dismiss anyone and anything we disagree with as AI...pathetic. Grow up. People like you and Burk embody modern-era bad faith 'arguing': 'Don't like an election result, blame Russia. Don't like an argument, blame an AI system.' I don't care what side of the political aisle you sit on (despite my Russia jibe, I'm a staunch leftist), but I *do* abhor intellectual dishonesty, which should, IMHO, be a fucking crime.

reply

I wasn't rude to you (I was rude about Justice Nichol, and the UK justice system in general, but that's hardly an attack on *you*, unless you are Justice Nichol/a significant part of the UK justice system). So, what was the point of being rude to me?

reply

Douchebagsayswhat?

reply

You discredit anything you have to say by your perpetual immaturity and constant use of this *misogynist* insult.

reply

Douchebagsayswhat?

reply