586
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
586 points (99.3% liked)
News
35749 readers
2678 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
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.