You’ve seen them celebrated all over social media: those thoughtful, sensitive content creators standing up for social justice causes. They were, of course, arduous promoters of #MeToo and pretty much anything preceded by a popular hashtag. Some have made a name for themselves covering abuse of power by rich, influential figures in the entertainment industry. Some have been active supporters of the Free Britney movement.

They use the right verbiage: power dynamics, standing with victims, advocating for marginalised communities, calling out abusers, promoting social justice. They use the right pronouns. They notice forms of mistreatment some people might not: subtle forms of psychological abuse and control, microaggressions and any sexually degrading behaviour women grapple with, especially as public figures. They advocate for mental health issues to be discussed respectfully. Sometimes they even go too far, producing content around one single gesture or word deemed politically incorrect. One might think these sensitive souls are just scrupulous.

And then, at the flip of a dime, they switch and defend a blatantly abusive man like Depp, using his fame and money to drag his victim through the mud. They applaud. They partake in the smear campaign, becoming peons in mass gaslighting, like pigs snorting around the through, ready to plunge their snouts into the cornucopia of public adulation.

Rest assured these people have never cared about abuse or injustice – these are simply the themes of the day, to be exploited for money. Hashtags to be plastered all over Twitter. Rallies to show face at for a photo op.

They make money from covering abuse victims, time and time again

From Hollywood paedos to murder cases, these people are ready – to use said cases for content; when it’s convenient, that is.These people have sway over hundreds of thousands of viewers. If they were truly honest and paid attention (some of them probably got their content for the trial coverage from truncated footage on TikTok), they could make a difference in terms of public discourse. They unequivocally presented one side, namely Depp’s. In some cases, creators tried to be neutral in the beginning, potentially to avoid breaking their own declared principles – however, they soon noticed the vitriolic reactions to mere neutrality and conformed.

No one remotely familiar with domestic abuse would look past Depp’s many lies during cross-examination and the written evidence against him, proving everything from verbal abuse to physical violence, interspersed with control, intimidation through destruction of property, misogyny and fits of jealousy. The man is, as one might say, textbook.

However, what their audience wants, their audience gets – they do after all participate in cancel culture; they live and breathe online cancellations. From their cushy gaming chairs, that is the last thing they want for themselves. Plus, there’s so much money to be made from supporting the popular narrative.

These are just a few examples (channels with large audiences, normally covering anything related to abuse or injustice relating to public figures). Everyone and their dog, whether big or small, has participated in this witch hunt for profit.

Sloan

Sloan is always concerned about a public figure appearing to be vulnerable or mistreated in some way.

So much so that he sees problems where there aren’t any – a pet peeve of his is the age difference in celebrity couples, particularly older males suspected of having “groomed” younger females. At times he makes such content in the absence of any allegation – and at times, he receives a cease and desist. Liz Gillies, for instance, threatened to sue him three months ago, after he made a video speculating on her marriage, which went out to roughly half a million people.

Besides being concerned about a major age difference – except in Depp’s case, of course, on multiple occasions – he is also concerned about people being abused and exploited, down to minute details and speculation. Out of this trial, however, he only remembers one thing of substance – that a paid “expert witness” claimed Amber’s photos had been somehow modified. Nothing else. Not his admissions, his apologies, his threats, his violent fantasies culminating in him wanting her dead. Not the control, including through a doctor and nurse drugging her with large doses of psychotropics without her knowledge, as was secretly recorded in Australia. Not the witnesses testifying to his unhinged behaviour. Someone said her photos were fake. Now let’s feed the crowd.

“Live Abuse Free“

This person is apparently a therapist specialising in domestic abuse. Knowing there are people like her out there puts me off trying to access therapy. Claiming to have such knowledge does not come with honesty or actual empathy, or any morals, it seems. In most civilised countries outside the US, coercive control is taken very seriously; she seems to pretend it doesn’t exist.

Amber being coerced to stop working, the jealousy fits, the constant misogynistic invalidation, the silent treatment/ denial of a reply (now claimed by crowds as a heroic way for Depp to avoid conflict by disappearing for days), the idealisation to devaluation to discard cycles – none of that matters. What addicts commonly do, especially when proven to act out violently (which as a therapist she should be well acquainted with), also doesn’t matter.

This person also covered the Gabby Petito case, which had certain similarities – not because I want to compare Depp to an actual murderer, but because relationships between women and abusive men tend to share certain traits. One of these is DARVO – which reverses the abuser and victim roles, with the former claiming to be the latter, with a variety of pretexts. Also, the victim will often apologise first and take responsibility for provoking conflict, such as a physical altercation, especially before authorities such as the police or court, to protect her abuser. So did Gabby, and the police were happy to believe she was the aggressor, planning to charge her – shortly after, she was found dead in a forest, after her abuser had strangled her.

To know about the prevalence of DARVO and not even question the now mainstream narrative that Amber was the abuser and not Depp, who has a history of rage and violence, is simply hypocritical.

A male abuser will often claim the following: she’s crazy, she’s impossible, she won’t shut up, she starts all the trouble, she’s aggressive/violent. This, while in private degrading and controlling their partner to unbearable levels, and often at least harbouring violent fantasies and making threats, if not acting them out. Does that sound familiar?

This lady may be a very small part of the Cerberus – perhaps a toenail – but given her credibility as a therapist, she is doing damage to female victims by her sheer denial of Depp’s abuse.

Swoop

This particular lady, as well, uses all progressive talking points, with their afferent jargon. Besides drama, she covers true crime cases, presumably coming across one Johnny after another – jealous, controlling, raging men who went just that one inch further.

However, when it came to this case, she joined the “Justice for Johnny” bandwagon without even a doubt or a nuance. She knows where her bread is buttered and will only hold popular opinions, at the right time of course. She encourages kindness and compassion, as well as respectful mental health discussions, while actively participating in mass bullying.

TehMimi

This particular lady was, for some time, part of a section of the YouTube commentary community displaying intense misogyny, despite “advocating” for female abuse victims constantly (exploiting them for clicks). And yes, despite the title of the video shown below, she – of course – concluded Amber was lying.

Content creators exploiting Britney Spears (some more)

Although on principle the Free Britney movement was positive in nature, it had its questionable or downright icky sides, like an endearing kitten covered in fleas.

First, there was the mob. It stands to question where these people had been, as for many years, Britney had continued to sell albums and concert tickets while she was being trafficked. Those performances during which she was being forced to work? Thousands bought tickets, showed up and applauded. They mostly started making a ruckus after she refused to keep working under duress. After she achieved her legal victory, not through the crowd but through her lawyer, this mass of people felt she owed them something. They started criticising her in petty ways, as it appeared to them she wasn’t behaving as she should have. It was as if they owned her. She was their little project.

This entitlement was fuelled by content creators covering her every social media post, every day. Once, I remember, there were videos and streams about her mere gesture of un-following a relative on Twitter.

Mark my words: if these people could have obtained more money by pathologising and ridiculing Britney Spears during her legal battle, they would’ve done it. They have zero issues doing that to women undergoing public bullying during a crisis. It is in fact their specialty: turning someone into a daily target of hatred and ridicule. If that person cracks under pressure and has an outburst, more content for them.

The same old tropes are used against women in that position: she’s crazy, she’s unstable, she gives evil looks/vibes, she’s narcissistic, look at her body language. They have no regard for someone’s struggles or mental health – or indeed the possibility that they are being smeared by interested parties.

I also want to point out the ongoing hypocrisy when it comes to mental health and male and female celebrities, as well as acting out. It took society 13 years to understand that Britney Spears didn’t need the regime of control and coercion imposed by her conservatorship. What had stuck in people’s minds were a few incidents of her acting out more than a decade ago, seeming in distress.

Akin to the treatment Amber is now receiving on social media, Britney was endlessly scrutinised; her every apparent imperfection or blunder was turned into headlines. She was metaphorically put through the mincer. When Britney hit a paparazzi car with an umbrella, she was deemed unhinged; when Depp took a plank of wood and started to hit the paparazzi with it, he was merely protecting his wife from their intrusive cameras. Whatever you think about striking back at paparazzi (hardly a moral crime), the double standard is obvious.

Men like Depp can act out in any way they please, for decades on end: they can have drunken rages on planes, take truckloads of illegal drugs, assault people, waste their fortunes and vandalise properties without anyone batting an eyelid. No one calls for them to be forced into treatment or into a conservatorship, to “protect their mental health” or “protect their assets”.

The women they abuse, however, continue to be put through the mincer and ridiculed, just like Britney was. Control and abuse are issues they have to deal with gracefully; Heaven forbid they ever lose their temper and strike back in any form.