I think we can go beyond the malice standard and talk about reasonableness. I didn’t see anything in that entire auction scenario that was unreasonable. We can nitpick about lots the specifics but nothing was unreasonable. Even managing the audience was all reasonable.

To bring this scenario up at this time, as that article does, is just trying to add field to the fire. And not actually be constructive.

If that article, " journalist", had done some fact checking research, then at least they’d be adding to the discussion, and it’d be maybe not reasonable but justifiable to bring it up… Like finding the name of the deceased, verifying they died, verifying they died at that time for that reason. Verifying the story about the mother also being dead. All of this should be discoverable public record to a journalist who wants to verify a story. Talking to the father getting their position. What were the contributing factors to the event. What evidence of systemic harassment was there? Like all of this would be fundamental to journalism. But no it’s just shit posting pointing to somebody’s post on the internet which they haven’t done any verification of…