Amber Heard vs Johnny Depp | Depp wins on all 3 counts

[Champ]

If you delete your account, that'll be one less Heard-Bot on the internet.

Not everything that you don't agree with is Pro Heardio on here,

I linked an article with evidence which states pro Deppo online chat has been outpacing that of Pro Heardio since the start of the trial, something I mentioned earlier in the trial.

That's neither Pro Heardio, nor anti Deppo.

 

[Champ]

He's literally quoting a study that found the overwhelming majority of bots to be pro-Heard & anti-Depp. He's using that study to support his claim that the vast majority of bots are pro-Depp.

This is literally like me going "Hey guys, this study says that smoking causes lung cancer. I guess that proves what I've been saying all along that smoking cures cancer!". I've never seen someone so obtuse & moronic. I'm convinced he's a social experiment to see how long he can WUM without getting banned & it's making my piss boil.

And this proves you haven't even understood the article!!

Nowhere does it mention anything like the bolded part.

Difficult to wum when all I'm doing is posting articles with interesting evidence to back up my previous claims.

 

[Drainy]

Yeah,

You?

Anecdotally people are massively engaged with the trial and are pro-Depp, and no I'm not the one bringing it up all the time.

 

[MichaelRed]

Not everything that you don't agree with is Pro Heardio on here,

I linked an article with evidence which states pro Deppo online chat has been outpacing that of Pro Heardio since the start of the trial, something I mentioned earlier in the trial.

That's neither Pro Heardio, nor anti Deppo.

No. You. Didn't. The article quotes the Cybara study which found the majority of bots to be pro Heard & you've used it to argue that you're right that the majority of bots are pro-Depp. You literally don't even agree with your own source. That's how fecking stupid you're being.

 

[MichaelRed]

And this proves you haven't even understood the article!!

Nowhere does it mention anything like the bolded part.

Difficult to wum when all I'm doing is posting articles with interesting evidence to back up my previous claims.

Oh. My. God. You're the most professional troll I've ever met. No, the article doesn't say the majority of bots are pro-Heard, I've literally said that from the start. The article does however quote the Cybara study to say that 11% of the chat on this topic is bots. If you then look up that Cybara study for yourself, instead of having to be spoon-fed, you'll find that the study found the vast majority of the bots were pro-Heard & anti-Depp. Do some independent research ffs.

 

[TrustInJanuzaj]

Feck sake

I've stated previously in this thread that people were pro Deppo before the trial started, this article highlights that at the start of the trial the online talk was predominantly pro Deppo.

So no, I'm not being obtuse, I'm linking an article which has shown something that I mentioned earlier in the thread.

Didn't realize it would trigger so many people

I can guarantee you that if Heard actually brought irrefutable evidence on the claims she made Depp would have been sunk for good. However, that isn't what happened, is it? She's made grand claims, committed purgery multiple times on the stand and has generally shown her true colours so people are obviously going to continue vilifying those things. I think you need to stop looking for some grand conspiracy when the reality is much easier to see.

 

[Champ]

No. You. Didn't. The article quotes the Cybara study which found the majority of bots to be pro Heard & you've used it to argue that you're right that the majority of bots are pro-Depp. You literally don't even agree with your own source. That's how fecking stupid you're being.

The original study was done a month ago,
The numbers have since changed, hence the change of bots from the original 3-5% to the 11% we have now!

 

[MichaelRed]

The original study was done a month ago,
The numbers have since changed, hence the change of bots from the original 3-5% to the 11% we have now!

The 3-5% was for any given conversation, not for what Depp vs Heard was a month ago. Jesus Christ. The 11% is from the Cybara study that I've told you so many times now, that the article even tells you, & that 11% is made up of a majority pro-Heard bots. You're just taking the piss at this point.

 

[Champ]

I can guarantee you that if Heard actually brought irrefutable evidence on the claims she made Depp would have been sunk for good. However, that isn't what happened, is it? She's made grand claims, committed purgery multiple times on the stand and has generally shown her true colours so people are obviously going to continue vilifying those things. I think you need to stop looking for some grand conspiracy when the reality is much easier to see.

I'm not looking for any conspiracy, why has everything been misconstrued here? Why does it need to be pro Deppo or Pro Heardio?

I couldn't give a damn about this trial, all I posted was an article which states online chatter is majority Pro Deppo, and has been since the start of the trial, something I have states previously yet been shut down about.

No conspiracy, no other motive, no siding with either of the twonks in this trial, just posting an article which evidently appears to have triggered people who seem to be heavily invested in one side.

 

[Champ]

Can you read..? The 3-5% was for any given conversation, not for what Depp vs Heard was a month ago. Jesus Christ. The 11% is from the Cybara study that I've told you so many times now, that the article even tells you, & that 11% is made up of a majority pro-Heard bots. You're just taking the piss at this point.

Jesus wept.

The study is by a company that have been following the trial for weeks and weeks,
Before the start they found that the bot level was within the 3-5% level, when it started it was up to 11%,

They have also stated that the level of pro Heardio bots was high at the start, higher than Pro Deppo, however that isn't the case now.

 

[Drainy]

Jesus wept.

The study is by a company that have been following the trial for weeks and weeks,
Before the start they found that the bot level was within the 3-5% level, when it started it was up to 11%,

They have also stated that the level of pro Heardio bots was high at the start, higher than Pro Deppo, however that isn't the case now.

I'm sure shamans was insisting the Bots were all Depp a few weeks ago

 

[Smores]

I love a meltdown when someone fecks up their source and just powers through.

 

[tomaldinho1]

The article suggests a huge amount of fake profiles/bots created that are commenting on this trial, which could well be the reason why the support for Heardio is being drowned out.

18billion views for pro Deppo videos is both insane and shocking in equal measure.
There's no way that wouldn't drown any support for Heardio out.
Almost like someone is running a bit factory...

The article doesn't specify that the bots are all pro Depp - I feel like you've jumped the gun a bit on this one - it states there is a huge amount of traffic which is pro Depp. When you break the traffic down it is 11% fake vs 89% real account driven, so the overwhelming bulk isn't coming from bots.

 

[Redlambs]

 

[MichaelRed]

Jesus wept.

The study is by a company that have been following the trial for weeks and weeks,
Before the start they found that the bot level was within the 3-5% level, when it started it was up to 11%,

They have also stated that the level of pro Heardio bots was high at the start, higher than Pro Deppo, however that isn't the case now.

Stop making shit up. They never stated the bots were at 3-5% & they've never stated that pro-Depp bots have overtaken Heard. Lying is getting you nowhere, just stop.

 

[dumbo]

Dear god I hope Amber wins this.

 

[Gandalf Greyhame]

Dear god I hope Amber wins this.

Anyone but Liverpool.

 

[fallengt]

Champio claims he doesn't care about this trial but he has almost 100 posts in this thread.

 

[Champ]

The article doesn't specify that the bots are all pro Depp - I feel like you've jumped the gun a bit on this one - it states there is a huge amount of traffic which is pro Depp. When you break the traffic down it is 11% fake vs 89% real account driven, so the overwhelming bulk isn't coming from bots.

The issue is the high amount of bots in comparison to other events, the study states that they only experience this amount of bots during an election.
They'd expect around 3-5% of bot activity, which they had at the end of April, now it's up to 11%.


Anyhow, my original post said nothing about bots, merely that the overwhelming majority of activity online is Pro Deppo and has been since the start of the trial.

 

[NicolaSacco]

Bloody hell, the way other people’s viewpoints are jumped upon here by a select few is embarrassing. I swear that some posters think that the harder they attack others the stronger their point is. There are legitimate arguments that support both parties in this trial. Simply denying any possible angle that doesn’t support your viewpoint is so childlike and unnecessary.

 

[Champ]

Champio claims he doesn't care about this trial but he has almost 100 posts in this thread.

I said I don't care about the outcome, I'm fascinated by people's reactions to it though, and fascinated by the support that either side gets.

Stop making shit up. They never stated the bots were at 3-5% & they've never stated that pro-Depp bots have overtaken Heard. Lying is getting you nowhere, just stop.

In an interview at the end of April, the CEO stated that bot activity was around 3-5% for online activity in the trial (that was up to 25th April).
That has evidently changed with the figure now at 11%.

Who's lying?

 

[NotThatSoph]

The first amendment doesn't come into this case. If Heard is lying, then it's defamation & the first amendment doesn't protect it. If she's telling the truth then the first amendment is irrelevant as you don't need an amendment to come to your defence for telling the truth. The first amendment does protect false statements of fact if they're made in private, which does not apply to the Washington post or to Twitter. The first amendment generally protects statements of opinion, i.e if she said "Johnny was the worst partner I've ever had", even though it's a negative assertion it would still be judged as an opinion & therefore likely protected. We also have the fact that this is even a trial at all, if the first amendment was relevant then the judge wouldn't have let this go to trial in the first place.

The first amendment comes into it because defamation is a restriction, and in every single defamation case it's a question if the speech is protected by the first amendment or if it crosses the line into defamation.

It's simply not true that it's just about truth and public vs private. You can say a lot of shit publicly, especially in the US. You have to, among other things, show both state of mind and damages. Take the Musk case. The rescue diver is not a pedo, the statements were made publicly, Musk's allegations are protected speech. Further, even though Musk's speech was judged to be protected free speech, the suit did to to trial. That's because it obviously isn't true that a judge won't let cases go to trial if free speech is relevant, because the whole point of the trial is to judge whether it crosses the line or not. This is basic stuff. It's like saying that a judge won't let a murder case go to trial if it's a self defense issue, when the whole point of the trial is that the prosecution is arguing murder while the defense is claiming self defense.

 

[Catt]

Bloody hell, the way other people’s viewpoints are jumped upon here by a select few is embarrassing. I swear that some posters think that the harder they attack others the stronger their point is. There are legitimate arguments that support both parties in this trial. Simply denying any possible angle that doesn’t support your viewpoint is so childlike and unnecessary.

Agreed!

 

[Denis79]

I'm not trying to fool myself into thinking anything

I linked an article which has highlighted that online chatter is majority pro Deppo, which is what I have been saying repeatedly in this thread.

It's pro Depp because people who have watched the actual trial have seen what a liar and nutter Heard is. I don't read twitter nor have I watched commented bits of the trial and many like me have come to the conclusion that you can't believe a word Heard says after all the lies she has been caught in.

Your complete denial of all that has happened during this trial is baffling.

 

[Redlambs]

Bloody hell, the way other people’s viewpoints are jumped upon here by a select few is embarrassing. I swear that some posters think that the harder they attack others the stronger their point is. There are legitimate arguments that support both parties in this trial. Simply denying any possible angle that doesn’t support your viewpoint is so childlike and unnecessary.

Agreed!

Whilst I agree with the sentiment, is that what's actually happening here?

I don't know if either of you have read that article, but it's a poorly written piece that doesn't seem to understand hashtags and views, uses race and "OMG STOP SILENCING ME!" baits, but above all else doesn't actually prove anything. Now I'm with Champio in the camp of it is lop-sided in my opinion, but that's my opinion and view. That's not me charging in here to shout "I'M RIGHT!" whilst misrepresenting a terrible article that actually shows no sign of proof.

In these days of social media and ever increasing difficulty in sifting through the "fake news", I'd much rather hurt someone's feelings than let things be twisted to suit whatever view someone wants to have. I don't think it's wrong for it to be pointed out to Champ where he has gone wrong, in fact that's exactly what people should be doing (obviously without the unnecessary attacks it descended to). If he chose to dig down, that's on him.

 

[Terry Chango]

Personally I didn’t think JD will care what the outcome is.

Regardless of the result he’s had the opportunity give his side of the story and Ambers come out far worse from this case IMO even if she wins the trial.

If I were him I would just want the world to know my side of the story and he’s been given the platform to do so.

 

[elmo]

Personally I didn’t think JD will care what the outcome is.

Regardless of the result he’s had the opportunity give his side of the story and Ambers come out far worse from this case IMO even if she wins the trial.

If I were him I would just want the world to know my side of the story and he’s been given the platform to do so.

Yeah, he's basically won because he'll start to get acting gigs again while everyone steers clear of Amber Heard.

 

[Redlambs]

Yeah, he's basically won because he'll start to get acting gigs again while everyone steers clear of Amber Heard.

Christ I hope not.

 

[tomaldinho1]

The issue is the high amount of bots in comparison to other events, the study states that they only experience this amount of bots during an election.
They'd expect around 3-5% of bot activity, which they had at the end of April, now it's up to 11%.


Anyhow, my original post said nothing about bots, merely that the overwhelming majority of activity online is Pro Deppo and has been since the start of the trial.

Which goes back to my original answer to your post, that given the order of who presented evidence first all legal experts were unanimous in predicting Depp would have a surge in popularity/support. What didn’t happen that they predicted would be the swing back after Heard had had her say.

Im not really sure why you feel the bot angle is important aside from it being an interesting stat? I feel like you’re creating a link that isn’t there (and isn’t in the article) between the fact initial support leaned towards Depp (which I’ve explained above) and the fact there is heightened bot activity to conclude it must be pro Depp bot farming?

 

[Himannv]

I think the jury are leaving towards ruling in favour of Heard based on the question they asked. They're specifically asking if the title of the article is what they need to consider as defamatory or whether they are asked to consider the whole article. It looks like Heard did not write that title and the title was actually added by the Washington Post, so they could be deciding that Heard was not being defamatory on that specific count.

 

[NicolaSacco]

Whilst I agree with the sentiment, is that what's actually happening here?

I don't know if either of you have read that article, but it's a poorly written piece that doesn't seem to understand hashtags and views, uses race and "OMG STOP SILENCING ME!" baits, but above all else doesn't actually prove anything. Now I'm with Champio in the camp of it is lop-sided in my opinion, but that's my opinion and view. That's not me charging in here to shout "I'M RIGHT!" whilst misrepresenting a terrible article that actually shows no sign of proof.

In these days of social media and ever increasing difficulty in sifting through the "fake news", I'd much rather hurt someone's feelings than let things be twisted to suit whatever view someone wants to have. I don't think it's wrong for it to be pointed out to Champ where he has gone wrong, in fact that's exactly what people should be doing (obviously without the unnecessary attacks it descended to). If he chose to dig down, that's on him.

Honestly, you need to just feck off at this point

Seriously, do some research or sod off.

Yes because the overwhelming evidence in this case favours Depp. Are you purposely being obtuse?

Are you purposely being obtuse?

If you delete your account, that'll be one less Heard-Bot on the internet.

I've never seen someone so obtuse & moronic

That's how fecking stupid you're being.

You're just taking the piss at this point.

Lying is getting you nowhere, just stop.

Champio claims he doesn't care about this trial but he has almost 100 posts in this thread.

Your complete denial of all that has happened during this trial is baffling.

@Redlambs I agree that ALL viewpoints should be open to challenge but look at the above quotes and tell me this is in any way constructive.

 

[Terry Chango]

Yeah, he's basically won because he'll start to get acting gigs again while everyone steers clear of Amber Heard.

Yep. She didn't have a great reputation before all this started in terms of getting along with her co-stars and producers if I'm not mistaken.

This trial has only made things worse for her regardless of the result whilst JD will be back on the black pearl in no time........maybe

 

[TrustInJanuzaj]

@Redlambs I agree that ALL viewpoints should be open to challenge but look at the above quotes and tell me this is in any way constructive.

Putting loads of quotes into one post doesn't make your view any more sensible ffs. I don't even give a toss about Depp.

 

[NicolaSacco]

Putting loads of quotes into one post doesn't make your view any more sensible ffs. I don't even give a toss about Depp.

a) My view is that the ad hominem attacks on one poster in the last few hours are frequent and unnecessary. So almost by definition I needed to quote them all to illustrate my point. If you think that that viewpoint isn’t ‘sensible’ then I really don’t know what to say.

b) I’ve not stated a view on the substance of the news article

c) I’ve never suggested you give a toss about Depp

 

[Redlambs]

@Redlambs I agree that ALL viewpoints should be open to challenge but look at the above quotes and tell me this is in any way constructive.

No, you don't understand my point. It's not a "viewpoint" he's twisting a poor article to suggest it factually suits his narrative. And if you are going to multi-quote, why have you missed out the initial responses before he started doubling down? That's doing something similar, no? The point being he was constructively responded to initially and rightly so.


You also missed this: obviously without the unnecessary attacks it descended to which is talking about after he dug deeper, though are still unnecessary.

 

[NicolaSacco]

Yep. She didn't have a great reputation before all this started in terms of getting along with her co-stars and producers if I'm not mistaken.

This trial has only made things worse for her regardless of the result whilst JD will be back on the black pearl in no time........maybe

The difference for me is that Heard will be remembered for this trial and not much else. It is probably the biggest thing she’s been involved in, and defines the public perception of her. With Johnny Depp that is absolutely not the case. His fame, fanbase, career history etc dwarf this trial. So just for that reason, and ignoring the actual truth of who did what to whom, I agree with you. He’s going to remain a superstar isn’t he, regardless of the verdict?

 

[NicolaSacco]

No, you don't understand my point. It's not a "viewpoint" he's twisting a poor article to suggest it factually suits his narrative. And if you are going to multi-quote, why have you missed out the initial responses before he started doubling down? That's doing something similar, no? The point being he was constructively responded to initially and rightly so.


You also missed this: obviously without the unnecessary attacks it descended to which is talking about after he dug deeper, though are still unnecessary.

In fairness I didn’t miss it, I kinda ignored it! My point was more that legitimate challenges have got wrapped up with personal attacks here, and it’s both counterproductive and difficult to unravel. Not quite sure what you mean about the initial responses - unless I’ve missed something, which is quite plausible, I don’t think he has been this level of abusive back?

 

[Redlambs]

The difference for me is that Heard will be remembered for this trial and not much else. It is probably the biggest thing she’s been involved in, and defines the public perception of her. With Johnny Depp that is absolutely not the case. His fame, fanbase, career history etc dwarf this trial. So just for that reason, and ignoring the actual truth of who did what to whom, I agree with you. He’s going to remain a superstar isn’t he, regardless of the verdict?

I have more faith in that they are both done.

But it is Hollywood

In fairness I didn’t miss it, I kinda ignored it! My point was more that legitimate challenges have got wrapped up with personal attacks here, and it’s both counterproductive and difficult to unravel. Not quite sure what you mean about the initial responses - unless I’ve missed something, which is quite plausible, I don’t think he has been this level of abusive back?

So you ignored part of my post just so you could multi-quote some responses? Even though I already answered your next question with the bit you ignored?

Some of you are very weird

 

[NicolaSacco]

I have more faith in that they are both done.

But it is Hollywood




So you ignored part of my post just so you could multi-quote some responses? Even though I already answered your next question with the bit you ignored?

Some of you are very weird

I have more faith in that they are both done.

But it is Hollywood




So you ignored part of my post just so you could multi-quote some responses? Even though I already answered your next question with the bit you ignored?

Some of you are very weird

Genuinely, what’s the issue with a multi quote?! Feels like I have broken some unwritten rule!

 

[TrustInJanuzaj]

a) My view is that the ad hominem attacks on one poster in the last few hours are frequent and unnecessary. So almost by definition I needed to quote them all to illustrate my point. If you think that that viewpoint isn’t ‘sensible’ then I really don’t know what to say.

b) I’ve not stated a view on the substance of the news article

c) I’ve never suggested you give a toss about Depp

Look ill argue against anyone I think is making an illogical, irrelevant or frankly stupid point. Posters calling out nonsense is nothing more than that.