c/politics · by silence7@slrpnk.net · 330d

You Really Need to See Epstein’s Birthday Book for Yourself

https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2025/09/jeffrey-epstein-birthday-book-conspiracy-theories/684157/?gift=bQgJMMVzeo8RHHcE1_KM0fGBEa0cMmXQ9jazwm3ufrc

You can find a copy here

192 points · 10 comments · view on lemmy.world

10 Comments

aarRJaay@lemmy.world · 48 pts · 330d (2 replies)

I don't understand how people saying "I cut off ties before his arrest" means anything. He was doing disgusting stuff waaaay before his arrest.

capt_wolf@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 329d

Lot of these people are coming from a time where they believe everything they did wasn't traceable. Except they've operated long into the digital era and it hasn't dawned on them, or they've been hoping no one else realizes, that they've left footprints all over.

"I deleted my browser history and Google searches so if anyone looks, they won't see all the weird stuff I was looking up." Same vibe...

Phunter@lemmy.zip · -1 pts · 330d

Really? I heard he really turned his life around so to speak.

thatsnothowyoudoit@lemmy.ca · 13 pts · 329d (3 replies)

Paywall bypass for the Atlantic article: https://archive.is/hjUb1

silence7@slrpnk.net · 2 pts · 329d (2 replies)

Top-level link is a gift link so unless you are removing the access token or disabling Javascript, you shouldn't need that for the next few days

thatsnothowyoudoit@lemmy.ca · 2 pts · 329d (1 reply)

Didn’t work for me. Got blocked with a subscribe pop up.

I have a shortcut that automatically gets or creates the links so no biggie - and I prefer the archive links anyway because there’s so much other noise on articles these days.

silence7@slrpnk.net · 1 pts · 329d

Yes, there's a section of the screen that asks you to subscribe, and you click a chevron on the top right of it to dismiss it, and then the article is fully available.

allo@sh.itjust.works · 12 pts · 329d (2 replies)

opened it up and looked at only the first page and i cant help but think how the practice of Redactions to protect people that arent the victims should really be not acceptable. how can that be justified? its obvious use of political power to hide evidence against people for which the evidence exists. if they didnt want the evidence to exist, they shouldn't have done the bad thing.

LadyButterfly@reddthat.com · 7 pts · 329d

Predators shouldn't be protected, and I'll bet the redactions are corruption. The only reason I'd accept is if there was a genuine risk to their children if the name was revealed

vorlaut_boy@feddit.org · 4 pts · 329d