Truth Hurts (Especially Some Dishonest and/or Greedy People), But Reporting Truth is What Makes Journalism Valuable to the General Public and Helps Protect Society From Abuse by Sociopaths or Pathological Liars
Or to protect future female victims from strangulation. Representing despicable men in the US is playing with lions' tails.
The firm that needs to defend a couple of Microsofters [1, 2] wrote to us some days ago, stating that it wants us to focus less on its actions (fronting for bad people) and more on... well, other stuff (how about the lawsuit they're embroiled in... in the US?). In other words, it does not wish to be talked about. But we live in a democratic society and transparency is the checks and balances in functioning democracies.
Speaking of checks and balances, since they want to tell us that we "mislead" (not even specifying a single example), let's check the "checks and balances", as mentioned last month.
The Microsofters (at least one of them has actual Microsoft money in the bank) have paid this firm - by conservative estimates - more than it had in the bank last year! Seriously.
Their "fixed assets" have halved in just two years and cash fell to nearly a quarter of what it was 2 years earlier (down from 331k to just 97.6k). It's a firm that, based on its own filings, perishes fast and might soon not be able to pay salaries (read: imperative layoffs).
This is all public information, in no way misleading (unless their accounting is false, which would be a serious offence).
2022 cash:
2024 cash:
Did the Microsofters save this firm from being relegated to overdraft in the bank (or even deeper in debt; it already has debt)?
When it comes to reporting, we're on the side of female victims, not the men who strangle them.
Nothing will change our minds or principled stance, not even "generous" threats from people who probably misuse a revocable law licence to practice what they call "reputation management". Some people do not deserve reputation laundering, irrespective of the price they (or Microsoft) are willing to pay. The "reputation management" industry is big and Microsoft is a big client.
Of course none of the above is a privacy violation (they fancy misusing "data protection"), it's all freely accessible in the public domain, over the open Web. It's not even OSINT and it's not based on any leakers or whistleblowers (albeit they too are entitled to protections).
Techrights always has and always will focus on facts. If proven incorrect, it'll correct errors. █