456
New Epstein files fail to quell outrage as advocates claim documents are being withheld
(www.theguardian.com)
this post was submitted on 03 Feb 2026
456 points (99.6% liked)
News
35256 readers
2595 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 right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
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.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
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 or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. 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.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
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
Consider for a moment the fact that you just said the solution to them releasing unredacted child porn is to release more unredacted child porn.
Consider for a moment the only thing we can confidently say they are reacting is things that would harm the perpetrators. They've redacted everybody but a victim time and again across the files they've released, frequently they'll react a perp in one document only to leave it unredacted in the next despite it having identical content (namely the text messages as there is message text contents as well as screenshots). Seeing as they already fail to redact child porn and are definitely reacting things that'll implicate people, including even Epstein I think you can make an extremely good argument they shouldn't be redacted at all when it's being done so plainly maliciously
Thank you for understanding my intention
They were looking for the president's name, and his favorites. 1,000 agents all last year was it on this? They probably used computer programs and ai to flag all mentions of people, redact by default all mentions of some things, etc to speed the process of redacting 8,000,000 files.
They were bad at it, partly because what they were redacting wasn't what they were supposed to be redacting, they were supposed to be protecting victims and safeguarding investigations. No one is more of a victim than the president and his party I suppose. As if there are ongoing investigations that aren't looking into how people found out about which abuse and how to capture and kill the information, and never how do we prosecute these people.
The only way for justice is to bring the crimes to light. The best way to honor the victims of abuse are to nail the perpetrators to the wall, and that is the only way to do that. And the files could be mostly released to media which then could redact sensitive information, but the files would be available to enough organizations/people that improper redactions to shield their favorites, looking at you NYTimes, would be caught, called out.
Yeah, that's not what you said. You said the full unredacted files were the only way forward. And now you're backtracking.
That doesn't make any sense in context pal. Releasing the files is the only way forward, to free the blackmailed from Israel and everyone else holding that information over them. Anyone arguing to keep it secret is protecting the pedophile elite. Why would you do that? Why indeed. Don't have to ask why that person would make an unfounded accusation to distract the issue, as they've no leg to stand on with reason to defend the rich not being outed for fucking children.
So it's natural for those taking their cues from our politicians to make personal accusations however ill formed, to put the person on the defensive, it works with most people. But try to stay on topic old boy.
You're the only one going off topic. You straight up said that releasing the full unredacted files was the only way forward. Releasing the full unredacted files means that all the CSAM would be unredacted too.
Even with context it means the same thing.
And I never said anything about keeping it secret. I support releasing everything and only redacting the victims.
Release to organizations to do the redacting I said.
Rather than allowing the government owned by the perpetrators to do the redacting.
Only a person obscuring the issue would take issue with my statement in a way that misidentifies what was said in a preceding comment as such.
No, that's not at all what you said. You said, "Releasing the full UNREDACTED files is the only way forward." No caveats.
Maybe you intended to say that they should be released to organizations to do the redacting, but that's not what you said.
Why is it so hard for you to admit that you misspoke?
Ah ye nest of vipers, how can you speak truth when all you say is lies?
I'm lying by directly quoting you?
I saw something like this once, in a two day speech given by Carneades of Cyrene in Rome.
And I thought I was old!
It's pretty clear they're saying they should only be redacted to protect victims, not perpetrators.
They literally said that the full unredacted files are the only way forward. They were very clearly not saying that.
You are very clearly ignoring that they said this, meaning that some kinds of redactions are appropriate.
I'm very clearly not ignoring it because I addressed it in my comment. The contradiction between their two statements is the entire point of my comment.
They didn't say, "release the files with only the victims redacted." They said release the full, unredacted files.
They did indeed, and using the context of what was said before that, you can reasonably deduce that they meant the full, unredacted files as far as the perpetrators go. You are being willfully obtuse by choosing to take the literal meaning of the last thing that was said and ignoring everything prior.
No, you can't reasonably deduce it. "Releasing the full UNREDACTED files is the only way forward," is an absolute statement. The context doesn't change this.
It's wild that instead of admitting they misspoke and meant there should be caveats, y'all are doubling down on intentions that were not present in the statement.