777
this post was submitted on 24 Jun 2025
777 points (97.8% liked)
News
35821 readers
2659 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Why the fuck would you harass someone for saving foxes? Is it because she's a woman?
God gave us dominion over all creatures read the Bible!
There are children dying in the streets here, why don't you do anything about them?
The foxes bread for fur here are not capable of living in the wild, "rescuing" and releasing them is the real animal abuse.
I think fox fur is fancy, fuck you lady!
Just some examples I can think of off the top of my head. People can get pretty polarized when it comes to killing, or not killing animals.
In this case I'd say it's a difference between animals raised as a product vs animals as pets. Personally, I don't take issue with animal products as long as the animal is treated with care during life and dignity during death, but I definitely understand why some people are against animal products. Harassing them to the point of suicide is not an acceptable reaction. I'd also put some money down that the industries she targeted had at least some involvement in harassing her.
A perfect demonstration of my point. Thank you.
I would also like to know what the criticism was, but at the same time, I also feel like the internet can be shit sometimes whether there was reason to criticise or not.
Pretty sad story.
I did the research in the muck mines of the internet for y’all, and it is more complicated than it looks on the surface.
Several animals died in her care due to neglect, including leaving foxes on leashes and letting them get tangled up and baked alive in the sun. There are text messages that leaked of her having paperwork forged to make some animals look like they were bred in captivity. Her organization was registered as a fur farm to avoid some taxes and regulations. Lastly, she had an OnlyFans page where the regularly posed with dogs and foxes in ways that suggested she was trying to appeal to zoofiles, including text descriptions that are very questionable.
A subreddit was created called Save A Fox Snark that was tracking her questionable methods, and one user in particular, seemingly a furry, was very active in screenshotting all of her questionable content in hope that she would get shut down for animal cruelty. That furry is now also being targeted for harassment.
I went straight into the swamp for this info—you can read it all on KiwiFarms, Soyjak, OnlyFans, and the internet archive pages of the Save A Fox Snark subreddit.
Yeah sorry if I don't believe this when the source is fucking kiwifarms
The source isn’t just kiwifarms—the internet archive pages of the subreddit are still up to see exactly what they were posting. The OnlyFans photos have been archived and there are many of them.
Believe whatever you want, but there was a whole mountain of information out there.
And you need to keep in mind that targeted harassment campaigns are perfectly content twisting and manipulating the truth. I have plenty of experience with shit like that from my personal life. So I do not put a lot of stock in info sourced from places like those
In addition, I highly doubt the founder would have been this deeply affected by the harassment if she actually was a person that didn't care much for the animals or others and their opinions
I do keep that in mind, that’s why I just report what I saw and where I saw it. The OnlyFans posts were created by her directly, I don’t think there is any dispute that the account was hers.
People can believe what they want, I just did some digging to see what the accusations were that made her feel like suicide was her only option.
There's a whole mountain of misinformation as well, and you decided that looking into the loaded conclusions and supposed "leaks" that had no other facts to back them up than what they were telling you.
She was the subject of harassment for reasons, and here were some of them. Whether the allegations were true or not isn't the point, she still felt harassed enough to do something terrible.
Kiwifarms isn't always wrong, but they like to fuck up things major ways, usually by focusing too much on someone being a leftist and/or trans, and sometimes even covering up abusers. They managed to cover up a rapist by not only focusing on her being trans, but also harassed multiple of her victims as it usually were "drunken sex", which wasn't considered as rape by many. Also Kiwifarms has an obsession with the "let's paint our targets as irredeemable assholes, so driving them into suicide will be heroic, and also can be weaponized against the same group later on". (BPD, while often seem like a misdiagnosis of badly mishandled CPTSD, is pretty much "asshole disorder" in many people's minds.)
Never, ever source Kiwifarms. That org is fucking disturbing
They were the ones organizing some of the bullying—I wanted to see the posts she was seeing to better understand the nature of the harassment.
I don't think the veracity of claims on these sites is important, moreso what was said and how it might have affected the narrative and her.
Thanks for the context. Very helpful.
So basically, you consider going to the people who drove her to commit suicide "doing the research".
Doing the research to see what they were saying about her that might lead her to commit suicide, yes. If you want to know what the cyber bullying was that caused someone to commit suicide, it makes sense to look at the posts themselves, which is what I did.
I too look at ISIS propaganda when I want to see why they did what they did 🙄
There's a huge difference between reading Mein Kampf and praising it for its good points.
Where did I praise my sources, exactly?
Terms like muck mines and swamp don't sound like praises to me.
From Google:
It's definitely giving recognition and weight to misinformation and/or propaganda in my book. You do you. Me, giving the same merit to bullshit arguments so that it makes the situation more "complicated than it seems" is praising it above the level it deserves.
By saying it is more complicated that it seems, I was primarily referring to the OnlyFans posts involving animals, which there seems to be no dispute are legitimate. She was an active poster while she was alive, and promoted it across different platforms.
I took "more complicated than it seems" to mean they complaints weren't something as simplistic as "she's treating foxes poorly", not as a "both sides have truth" thing.
They claimed she was not taking proper care of the foxes. I haven't read one thing that was in any way proven. It was just trash talking trolls doing what they do best, telling lies. They had story after story about the conditions. The woman was trying to do good, something none of those trolls harassing her have ever did. The trash reddit sub went private because now they fear consequences.