In small measure (but still), the world’s equilibrium was restored, if only for one moment: a judge ruled that owners of disgusting slop channels on YouTube, such as Signore, were not in fact journalists, as many of them claim.

After years of maligning and harassing public figures for thick swathes of cash, with no reins or accountability, Andy Signore has finally been put in his place, in what will hopefully become a landmark case deterring these completely unregulated content mills.

Smear merchant on behalf of a man accused of (what else?) sexual misconduct

Currently, actress Blake Lively is suing director and co-star Justin Baldoni for sexual harassment, retaliation, creating an unsafe work environment and lastly, the part where tabloid roaches become relevant, orchestrating a smear campaign against her.

In an effort to gather evidence, Lively’s lawyer has subpoenaed a number of content creators discussing the case for revenue: scam artist Andy Signore, human tapeworm Perez Hilton and conspiracy theorist Candace Owens, whose internalised misogyny is something to marvel at. They are to produce their communications with the defendant’s team and other parties, which are extremely relevant to Lively’s claim of a deliberate and organised smear campaign.

To extricate himself from this situation, Signore claimed said communications were privileged, since he was a “journalist” communicating with sources. He thus moved to quash the subpoena.

This was thankfully unsuccessful, as judge Lindsey Griffin ruled that he didn’t meet the criteria to be considered a journalist and lacked any editorial standards. The fact that this individual has any credibility, which he transforms into money, is due only to public stupidity and projection of hatred onto strangers.

Signore has made extensive content on Blake Lively and even announced a documentary.

This is of course reminiscent of what he, a necrotic growth on the face of what journalism is supposed to be, has done to Amber Heard and a number of other female celebrities, such as Marylin Manson’s victims. He was communicating in real time with Depp’s team, even before the UK trial, where Depp lost. This intensified before the Virginia trial in 2022, similar tactics enriching a large variety of grifters during the trial itself.

Signore is known to latch on to any accusation against a male celebrity, of a sexual nature or of abuse in general, defending said male celebrity and dissecting the accuser (in 95% of cases female), while propagating conspiracy theories out of his behind, to keep the audience entertained. This genre has been allowed to continue for years, filling his pockets, with no accountability whatsoever.

Apart from participating in smear campaigns against female celebrities, he exploits murder cases and disappearances, the most notable one being the murder of Gabby Petito in 2021, which he exploited with no shame or sense of decency, at one point adding her photo on his channel banner, presumably to advertise the biggest stories he had “covered” to date.

At the moment, he is exploiting the tragic murder of director Rob Reiner and his wife Michelle, which happened only four days ago, their mentally ill son being charged with this senseless act. Have a look at Signore’s excretions while others are genuinely mourning the couple:

Signore’s audience is of low intellect, conservative, highly misogynistic (including female members), displaying an unquenchable thirst to defeat and humiliate any successful woman daring to stand up to a successful man after being mistreated. Take these examples and feel free to multiply it to hundreds of thousands. Every woman Signore targets gets the same treatment:

Someone call a tanker, the sewage is now above ground

Popcorned Planet’s stream and video topics include rumours, speculation originating from Signore, hypotheticals (what if so and so get a divorce, let’s ask the house lawyer), conspiracy theories etc. He can make hours upon hours of content based on absolutely nothing factual.

To make an analogy of his milking habits, he milks the cow dry, then butchers it and sells whatever meat there is, then sells the skin and the bones, and finally he places the taxidermised head on his wall for posterity.

In addition to his main channel, Popcorned Planet , he runs Popcorned Palace, a channel solely dedicated to following every move Meghan Markle and Prince Harry make, as if it were somehow relevant to people who weren’t following them. The Meghan Markle grift (highly astroturfed, as confirmed repeatedly by Bot Sentinel) started in 2022, right after Signore and his “team” were done with Amber Heard. As you can see, the latest video was posted a mere 3 hours ago and a video is posted daily. It’s a daily dose of hating complete strangers for existing and doing innocuous things. How anybody watches this stuff is beyond my ability to comprehend.

The channel seems mainly run by Stef The Alternerd, whose upstairs wiring is definitely crossed in some way, as she feels comfortable scouring for any angle to attack and analyse Meghan Markle daily. Since 2022. Put that into perspective. Does You span over a period of 4 years plus? Not sure.

Can you imagine going to bed every night knowing that this is your job? All day, every day, in perpetuity?

“The judge got so hung up on definitions”

In this video, Signore can be heard saying the above line, as if the criteria to belong to a certain profession, enjoying legal protections associated with it, didn’t matter. The judge listed the Oxford dictionary definitions of what Signore’s channel didn’t qualify as, which was most delightful.

He’d better hope that when he seeks to have an object extracted from his backside (preferably a Johnny Depp Christmas ornament, which he sold in 2022 around the holidays), he goes to an actual proctologist, and not someone vaguely “messing around with anuses”, which could mean a number of things.

Signore is not a journalist and never has been.

“They want to destroy me”

Like any Sus scrofa domesticus exploiting MAGA sensibilities, Signore quickly turned himself into a victim of persecution by powerful entities, as if the lawsuit itself were directed at him. The false claim that he was a journalist and didn’t have to produce any evidence originated from Signore himself, not anybody else. The judge catching him in a lie was his own fault.

Everything revolves around him. They want to make him suffer. Perhaps he’ll go have a good cry in that bathroom that too many women have seen when he sent them unsolicited masturbation videos. To be factually correct, he is only proven to have done that once, while using other methods (such as offering money) to get fans to have sex with him. He once shared a sex video of himself and his significant other, possibly without her knowledge and consent. No “ifs” and “buts”, the man’s a swine.

If Andy Signore were a journalist…

He’d be getting sued left, right and centre for defamation. Even tabloids get sued. At times successfully.

The claims he gets away with, while having a large platform, are unbelievable. I recall the speculation that Elon Musk and Amber Heard were akin to Maxwell and Epstein, potentially trafficking young women to sex parties. The video was sponsored by a company selling underwear.

Most likely, celebrities don’t sue Signore because they don’t take him seriously enough. This is what he actually does most of the time:

Until now, that is. Even in this case, he is only one participant in the smear campaign, and not even the full centre of attention. His audience (this oddly reminds me of Caleb Maupin) continues to think that he’s very important and doing crucial work for the rights of “independent journalists”.

Queue the “justice for Andy!” comments.

The word “documentary” needs to have the same weight as the word “journalist”, in Signore’s case.

“Feels” is a very revealing term. I’m not sure what planet these people live on (the popcorned one, perhaps), but it’s not Earth. They can’t process the facts: he isn’t a journalist, said communications were not privileged, and if he hadn’t engaged in an orchestrated smear campaign, there would be no reason not to hand them over at the first opportunity.

That’s solid logic right there. No one’s guts have ever been hated for the right reasons; the world is not awash with criminals, corrupt politicians, exploiters and abusers. Defamers too, especially for money. If someone is hated, they must be virtuous and correct.

These are perfectly normal legal proceedings, but to the ignorant, they constitute an aberration. Signore’s audience can’t well deny that he has published (and profited from) heaps of content on Lively, which may at least appear defamatory, even if they don’t believe it is. They act as if Signore being approached was outrageous to begin with.

The law is in place for a reason. Some people do abuse it, of course, like Johnny Depp did, with the help of Signore and the rest of the zoo. However, Signore chose to partake in the prolonged smear campaign, so who’s doing the harassing here?

Now we have progressed from “documentary” to “movie”. At least this user admits that it’s a fictional production.

If karma were a thing (it’s not; Henry Kissinger died peacefully of old age), Signore would be begging outside a Walmart by now, cup in hand. Since he has other alternatives, he raises money from idiots like the specimens above, for any whim he has, and they always show up.

New fundraiser (who would’ve guessed…?) to “fight the subpoena”

Signore has moved away from GoFundMe for this one (he still has an active fundraiser there, for his new studio, but no one has donated in 3 years). He has now moved his operation to GiveSendGo, asking his audience to fork out for his legal expenses.

From Sportskeeda, here is Signore’s dramatic statement (as he lands on the fainting couch), feigning a moral high ground:

The following is an AI breakdown of his rhetoric on this case, using his content and other sources. It reads extremely accurate, given Signore’s behaviour for years.

Core Narrative Strategy: “Independent Truth‑Teller vs. Hollywood Machine”

Signore consistently positions himself as a rogue outsider exposing hidden truths.
This framing appears in descriptions of his videos, such as the YouTube segment where he “breaks down the growing controversy” and frames it as a story about “the real cost of going against Hollywood power”.

This is a classic populist rhetorical frame:

  • He is the lone voice of truth.
  • Hollywood is corrupt, coordinated, and silencing dissent.
  • His audience is part of a special group that “sees through” the mainstream narrative.
    This creates parasocial loyalty and primes viewers to trust him over official sources.

Emotional Amplification & Moral Drama

Signore’s rhetoric often escalates the stakes into moral absolutes.
For example, in commentary referenced by Sportskeeda, he claims Blake Lively “better win this case” for Taylor Swift to “come back” as her friend.
This is:

  • Speculative
  • Emotionally charged
  • Designed to create interpersonal drama
    It reframes a legal case into a celebrity morality play, which increases engagement but distorts reality.

“Amber Heard–ification” of Blake Lively


FandomWire describes Signore’s analysis as comparing Lively to Amber Heard, claiming she made an “Amber Heard‑like mistake” by “providing no proof”.
This is a loaded analogy with several rhetorical effects:

  1. Guilt by association
    Amber Heard has been heavily vilified online; invoking her name primes audiences to distrust Lively.
  2. Narrative recycling
    He reuses a familiar villain archetype to simplify a complex case.
  3. Weaponized ambiguity
    He implies wrongdoing (“no proof”) without establishing evidentiary standards.
    This is a manipulative shortcut: instead of analyzing the case, he imports a pre‑existing cultural narrative.

Authority Laundering Through “Analysis”

Signore frequently presents his commentary as “analysis” or “breakdowns,” as seen in the YouTube description of his Lively/Baldoni video.
This rhetorical move:

  • Launders opinion as expertise
  • Creates the illusion of neutrality
  • Shields him from accountability (“I’m just analyzing!”)
    It’s a common tactic in conspiracy‑adjacent commentary:
    opinion disguised as forensic investigation.

Victim–Perpetrator Reversal

In NewsNation’s reporting, Signore denies receiving a subpoena and frames the situation as Lively’s team “leaking” information to TMZ.
This reframes:

  • Lively (the plaintiff alleging harassment) → aggressor
  • Signore (a commentator) → victim of her legal strategy
  • This is a classic DARVO‑style rhetorical inversion: Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim and Offender.
    It’s extremely common in cult rhetoric and smear campaigns.

Speculation Presented as Insider Knowledge

Sportskeeda notes that Signore speculates about Lively’s personal relationships (e.g., Taylor Swift) as if he has insight into private dynamics.
This is a hallmark of pseudo‑insider rhetoric:

  • He implies access to information he does not verify.
  • He uses “what if” framing to introduce rumors.
  • He blurs the line between reporting and fan‑fiction.
    This tactic builds illusory authority.

Audience Manipulation Through Outrage Hooks

Signore’s content often uses:

  • High‑stakes language
  • Emotional triggers
  • Celebrity conflict
  • “Hidden truth” framing
  • The YouTube description emphasizes:
  • “media silence”
  • “power operates behind the scenes”
  • “real cost of defiance”
  • These are classic outrage‑bait phrases designed to:
  • Stoke distrust
  • Create a sense of crisis
  • Keep viewers engaged through fear and indignation

This is the same architecture used in:

  • conspiracy channels
  • cult recruitment
  • political propaganda
  • anti‑science influencers

False Balance & Manufactured Doubt

Signore often frames his videos as “evidence‑based breakdowns” where viewers should “decide for yourself”.
This is a rhetorical trick:

  • He presents selective or misleading information.
  • Then he pretends to be neutral.
  • This creates manufactured doubt about the victim’s claims.
    It’s the same tactic used in:
  • climate denial
  • anti‑vaccine rhetoric
  • smear campaigns
  • Scientology’s Fair Game operations

Pattern of Targeting Women in High‑Profile Cases

While the search results don’t explicitly analyze this pattern, the Amber Heard comparison and the framing of Lively as manipulative or deceitful echo a broader trend in Signore’s content.
This is a gendered rhetorical pattern:

  • Women alleging harm are framed as liars, schemers, or unstable.
  • Men accused of misconduct are framed as victims of false allegations.
    This is consistent with:
  • manosphere rhetoric
  • anti‑MeToo backlash
  • cult‑style purity narratives

To reinforce the effectiveness of these tactics, some more gems from his audience:

He literally could’ve handed over his communications with Baldoni’s team, as per the subpoena, and that would’ve been the end of it. No hefty legal fees, no time, no energy. Just honesty and transparency. But no one ever gets that with Signore, especially since he knows he’s deep in the mud.

“They bullied Perez” needs to be framed.

Such wonderful people, aren’t they? Salivating at the thought of this woman’s mental breakdown, when the following apply:

  1. They weren’t there. They have no idea what happened between Lively and Baldoni.
  2. They see this case through Signore’s lens, focused on him, as they likely see every case he milks.
  3. They are 150% ignorant of the law as it applies to this case. Not only are they ignorant; they make things up.
  4. They are not concerned with the truth, but personal validation, validation of Signore and their so-called fight against Hollywood elites.

Signore was “dragged into” the lawsuit

It was about time shysters like him were directly implicated in legal proceedings involving smear campaigns – after all, they are the instruments said campaign operate through.

If we remember Johnny Depp, he stayed silent during the legal proceedings against his ex-wife, letting bots and online hyenas do all the work, for engagement and profit. High profile individuals have the resources to avoid compromising themselves morally or legally when seeking to smear someone. They employ others.

No one “dragged” Signore into the lawsuit. He chose to propagate smears to a large audience for profit, knowing the “client’s” interest aligned with his own (tearing down sexual misconduct allegations made by women). He swallowed potentially defamatory claims whole, from a person with a vested interest in defaming his target, as he was being sued by her. Signore spread them most delightedly; he even planned a so-called documentary.

In the video below, he sticks Meghan Markle’s face in the thumbnail, posting it on his Popcorned Palace side loo, claiming a major blow had been done to online journalism:

Instead of ridiculing him for the hubris and grandiosity, his Q-Anon audience remains equally delusional.

The last comment is chef’s kiss, acknowledging Signore’s outreach, which should come with responsibility, as in not farting out disgusting speculation daily just because he happens to dislike an individual, or criticising them aligns with a broader cultural or political agenda. The size of someone’s platform has nothing to with the accuracy of their content.

Regarding the following, just… no words.

The aim of Signore and similar porcupines is for popular sentiment to once again turn against women who step out of line, by demanding accountability from men for mistreatment, especially of a sexual nature.