By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Here’s a summary as if it’s part of the original article:
When asked about the relevance of an ad, users reported a variety of issues. Many experienced slow video loading times or complete failure to load content, while others encountered frozen ads or incomplete loading sequences. Some also cited problems with the video not starting after the ad, and excessively loud audio. These problems collectively contributed to a negative user experience.
Read the original article here
The core issue here, as it’s being perceived, is that the Department of Justice (DOJ) isn’t acting in the interests of the victims, but rather to protect itself and those in power. It’s a perception fueled by the extensive redactions and selective releases of the Epstein files. The feeling is that the DOJ is more concerned with shielding certain individuals, potentially including high-profile figures, than with providing justice or closure to the survivors of Epstein’s crimes.
The emphasis on redactions is a key point. The argument goes that if the goal were truly to protect victims, then a simple black box over the face would be sufficient. The fact that entire images and large portions of documents are being blacked out raises suspicion. Many are interpreting this as a deliberate attempt to conceal the involvement of specific individuals, particularly those with political influence. The idea is that the DOJ is using victim protection as a smokescreen to hide the truth.
This perception is compounded by the belief that the system itself is designed to protect those in power. It’s suggested that the government, in all its branches, is complicit in covering up wrongdoing. This distrust extends to independent agencies, which are often viewed as serving the interests of those they are supposed to regulate, not the victims or the public. The frustration is that expecting justice from such a system is like expecting a thief to return your stolen property.
The calls for transparency are loud and clear. There is a demand for the full, unredacted files to be released. The belief is that the American people deserve to know the truth about Epstein’s network and the individuals involved. Some feel that the survivors themselves hold the key, and they should name those who harmed them. The implication is that if these files are released, they would expose the scope of the cover-up and the individuals benefiting from it.
The argument takes on a political dimension as well. The perception is that the DOJ is politically motivated, protecting certain individuals while potentially implicating others for political gain. The idea is that even if the files were released, the “fascist” and “zombie” followers of the individuals would continue to blindly support them, regardless of the evidence. It’s a very cynical view of the political landscape.
Some commenters are taking a more direct and confrontational approach, calling on the victims to speak up and share their stories. There’s a sentiment that the time for secrecy is over, and the survivors hold the power to expose the truth. This is a call for the victims themselves to be the ones to take control of their narrative.
In the end, the core takeaway is a profound lack of trust in the institutions meant to serve justice. The Epstein case is seen as a prime example of how the system can fail victims, prioritizing the protection of powerful individuals over all else. The perceived cover-up, the political maneuvering, and the extensive redactions all contribute to this sense of disillusionment and frustration.