The very first section of Robson's allegations is an example of how when he realizes a certain true part of his story does not support his goals he simple changes it to a lie.

He and Joy repeatedly stated under oath that Target run the 1987 dance contest.

Wade 2005 testimony

Joy 2016 deposition
Wade 2013 Apr declaration

blacked out but it's clearly Target not MJJ Production
Wade 2013 Apr Complaint
Wade June 2013 first amended complaint
Wade Feb 2014 second amended complaint

suddenly Target vanishes and is replaced by MJJ Production

WTF?
But in this second amended complaint the meet-and-greet is still described as nothing special. He only says it went well.
He is not making any allegations regarding that or the second meeting they had in the hotel.
Wade Dec 2014 third amended complaint

still no allegations regarding the meetings
Wade Sept 2016 fourth amended complaint

after he hired Finaldi and Manly

suddenly those two meetings were sexual grooming mechanism orchestrated by MJJ Prod. and MJJ Ventures even though Ventures did not even exist yet.

WTF?
By the time they shot Leaving Neverland he and his mother somehow "forgot" that these meetings were "sexual grooming mechanism" and both cheerfully talked about the experience they had in 1987.
So 4 years after he first accused him suddenly he remembered that those two meetings were grooming even though MJ didn't even give them his phone number and in fact ignored their letters for two years and if it had been up to him he would have never met Wade again
Instead it was his mother who wanted the second meeting and who two yeas later called around to desperately find a way to contact him. Joy even mocked how MJ did NOT give them any contact info
So MJ's idea of procuring kids was to use his company to run a dance contest, have a short meeting with the future victim and then.....ignore him for years and just hope that they will somehow find a phone number they can use to contact him again.
The most sophisticated child procurement organization the world has ever known, indeed.

More from For later read

This response to my tweet is a common objection to targeted advertising.

@KevinCoates correct me if I'm wrong, but basic point seems to be that banning targeted ads will lower platform profits, but will mostly be beneficial for consumers.

Some counterpoints 👇


1) This assumes that consumers prefer contextual ads to targeted ones.

This does not seem self-evident to me


Research also finds that firms choose between ad. targeting vs. obtrusiveness 👇

If true, the right question is not whether consumers prefer contextual ads to targeted ones. But whether they prefer *more* contextual ads vs *fewer* targeted

2) True, many inframarginal platforms might simply shift to contextual ads.

But some might already be almost indifferent between direct & indirect monetization.

Hard to imagine that *none* of them will respond to reduced ad revenue with actual fees.

3) Policy debate seems to be moving from:

"Consumers are insufficiently informed to decide how they share their data."

To

"No one in their right mind would agree to highly targeted ads (e.g., those that mix data from multiple sources)."

IMO the latter statement is incorrect.

You May Also Like