besides do you really think jeffery would pay people to shitpost here? i feel like more of his was spent on his child trafficing empire and his powerful connections, than caring about the quality of threads on 4chan. if anything paid shills posting here would just be another source of leaks, something he would probably not want.

>he actually unironically posted on 4chan
kekarooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

Why would some mega elite child trafficker be on Xbox live and 4chan? Smells like a psyop to make chuds empathise with him

i get banned for calling out 4chan faggots hypocrisy but blatant genwar threads are ignored unless you're targeting janny's favorite shit game just letting you know that

>>527401976
It's 100% real and easily findable. Search "amazing animations" or "http://boards.4chan.org/u/"
https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%2011/EFTA02328259.pdf
https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00921743.pdf

>>217691182
"Arguing" usually involves trying to make a point. You're chastising people for not liking season 3 of Rick and Morty because they didn't watch Community. What is your "argument"? If it's any variation of "You aren't allowed to critique Rick and Morty if you haven't watched Community" it's one of the most autistic things I've ever seen in 20 years on 4chan.

taylor swift amd doja cat used 4chan and probably many others they fetishize this life

>>527398024
>The hack last year already revealed half the 4chan staff have deep state connections
You're just repeating memes, originating from a schizo on /g/ from before even the website got hacked.

Jeffrey Epstein would like FNAF, lmao. I'm so sorry, but I'm fucked up by "Jeffrey Epstein browses 4chan and likes FNAF" is something that actually happened.
I think I want to stop being a FNAF fan.

>>12760375
I agree it's more likely than not just a coincidence, or, like, essentially a coincidence (so it caused some chain of events that spurred moot to do it, but very indirectly).

And, yes, I doubt any of the meetings were that interesting, it was probably mostly networking events with some business and tech people who Epstein knew.

It seems like /pol/ may have been the very same day, though, and it was the very first meeting, so it is just kind of weird.

>I think this really shows that the elites early on recognized the potential of 4chan for radicalizing people
Assuming the /pol/ thing is a coincidence, then I think probably not. Around 2011 4chan was just kind of seen as an interesting, dark, creative thing . I think Epstein/friends probably just found 4chan and moot interesting and weren't thinking about radicalization. A lot of people met with him and interviewed him.

moot did his first reddit AMA in 2011: https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/gdzfi/iam_christopher_poole_aka_moot_founder_of_4chan/

Press coverage, etc.: https://techcrunch.com/2011/04/02/founder-stories-poole-moot-4chan-memes/

He also started his (failed, lame) startup Canvas in 2011. Epstein was probably partly interested in that and moot maybe thought these events could help him grow Canvas.

In 2011, I don't believe anyone was talking or thinking about 4chan causing radicalization. I think it would've been 2013 at the earliest that that started entering the discourse, and, as you say, especially 2014 with Gamergate.

>>12760393
He bribed and groomed young teenage girls and exploited them for sex. He was not a good guy. I believe at least some of the underage girls did not initially know that it was going to turn into a sex-for-hire thing. It started with massages and would escalate.

And even if they instead did have foreknowledge, underage people can't truly consent to being paid in exchange for having sex with adult men they don't want to have sex with, no matter how lucrative.