163
[alt text: several screenshots of posts on twitter. The bottom post is a tweet from @DrDisrespect on twitter, which says, "LIVE in 30 minutes. I just installed Deadlock... what the hell is this game? If it's from Valve, I must know. I must... understand the future of multiplayer gaming." This Dr Disrespect tweet is a screenshot being shared by @IntelDeadlock on twitter. Their post includes text that says, "Dr Disrespect is playing Deadlock today! Please avoid queue if you are a minor". The top post is another, later tweet from @IntelDeadlock on twitter, which says, "His entire team left his very first game". The post includes a screenshot of Dr Disrespect's livestream.]
"Unknown reasons" you immediately followed on with. It simply wasn't illegal. Most people seem to consider it immoral but the messages have never been released so we don't even know what was said. If not illegal it's probably not horrific.
Unknown reason that have not been stated. I was 100% speculating, but that does not make it not super gross and creepy.
I prefer to reserve my commentary for when the facts are available. Contextually it's suspicious but ultimately amounts to an unsubstantiated smear campaign until we see the chats or prosecution, of which we have neither.
We have that he was banned from twitch. When somebody bringing in that much money for Twitch, you know what they did was bad. Keep defending a shitass though. I'm sure that'll go great for you
Businesses make business decisions, we don't know the true intentions of any given action from the outside.
Amazon isn't the most trustworthy company I can think of
Corporations hide crimes all the time, even when they are the victims. If the crime will lose them money in any way, either directly or from a reputation hit, it's very likely a company will not report it.
It only because the employees involved had their NDAs expire and confirmed they saw some very fucked up things that we know what he did.
Twitch fired him publicly when he was one of their biggest streamers. It's fully possible the explicitly sexual messages are a crime, but the parties involved, including the minor victim, did not want it reported.
You can argue amazon should have reported it anyway if it rose to that level, but with none of the involved parties forcing the issue, it makes sense from a buisness stance not to.