Uploaded January 2022 | Updated September 2026, 2 weeks ago
NB. Having compared Shannon's typical video content to her latest video upload, I would argue that she is working with a legal team based on the legal jargon and style of argument she used. The difference in tone, semantics, and video style demonstrated to me that her video is likely intended for more than just a regular monetised upload to YouTube: It is a legal document which she can use, quite effectively, in proving that she has been defamed. Her video, in my opinion, was NOT made for her YouTube audience or for Emily Artful which explains why it has gotten the overwhelmingly negative response that it has.
NB. I am not a lawyer! And, no, I don't watch Law & Order. I just read a lot and am obsessively analytical. This video was made for my own amusement more than anything else.
NB. Please be respectful, civil, and kosher in the comment section. I am not a horrible person for holding an opinion and stance that may differ to yours: I respect you and I ask that you do the same. Thank you so much for your time and for listening to what I have to say.
TIMESTAMPS
0:00 Introduction
1:30 The Situation | A brief summary of what on earth I'm talking about! ; The 'drama' commentary community summarised
6:58 The objective of Shannon's video (The Lies of Emily Artful [With Evidence]) | Defining 'defamation' and 'posterity'
9:13 I believe Emily (Artful)...but that isn't the central issue when it comes to Shannon's video and its implications | Why Shannon went into so much detail ; Why it is possible to believe Emily's claims and to simultaneously identify Shannon as having the more persuasive evidence ; Why Shannon can argue that she is not a stalker alongside her very 'stalker-like' video
23:00 Commentary | The downside of Shannon's video and why she has definitely lost her audience by uploading it ; Why there is room for improvement in the commentary community and the paradoxes it finds itself in
26:47 lolcow | High Tech With Grumpo's investigative findings into lolcow.farm's admin ; "Zombie Cookies" and violating data protection | How lolcow, potentially, defamed Shannon and how she can prove this in court
37:55 Morality vs. legality in Shannon's video
39:52 The parasocial paradox | Why Shannon is so unremorseful
48:36 HOW TO HELP EMILY | The 'dislike' button & speculation
50:17 Concluding remarks
REFERENCES
➡️ bbc.co.uk/news/technology-10787882 ("Legal action on 'zombie cookies' filed in US court", BBC News)
CREDIT
➡️ Do check out HIGH TECH WITH GRUMPO youtube.com/watch?v=ORE7ZSUCibQ&t=728s ("lolcow DIDN'T expose CreepShow Art")
➡️ Some great, bitesized commentary from JOHN SWANLING youtube.com/watch?v=MEG1JZZ55UE&t=40s ("CreepShow Art drama EXPLAINED in under 2 minutes")
FEEL FREE TO FOLLOW ME ON MY VARIOUS SOCIAL MEDIA ACCOUNTS:
➡️ Twitter - @kidology_co
➡️ Instagram - kidology.co
➡️ Patreon - Kidology (⭐️EXCLUSIVE PATREON Q&A COMING OUT THIS MONTH!)
NB. Having compared Shannon's typical video content to her latest video upload, I would argue that she is working with a legal team based on the legal jargon and style of argument she used. The difference in tone, semantics, and video style demonstrated to me that her video is likely intended for more than just a regular monetised upload to YouTube: It is a legal document which she can use, quite effectively, in proving that she has been defamed. Her video, in my opinion, was NOT made for her YouTube audience or for Emily Artful which explains why it has gotten the overwhelmingly negative response that it has.
NB. I am not a lawyer! And, no, I don't watch Law & Order. I just read a lot and am obsessively analytical. This video was made for my own amusement more than anything else.
NB. Please be respectful, civil, and kosher in the comment section. I am not a horrible person for holding an opinion and stance that may differ to yours: I respect you and I ask that you do the same. Thank you so much for your time and for listening to what I have to say.
TIMESTAMPS
0:00 Introduction
1:30 The Situation | A brief summary of what on earth I'm talking about! ; The 'drama' commentary community summarised
6:58 The objective of Shannon's video (The Lies of Emily Artful [With Evidence]) | Defining 'defamation' and 'posterity'
9:13 I believe Emily (Artful)...but that isn't the central issue when it comes to Shannon's video and its implications | Why Shannon went into so much detail ; Why it is possible to believe Emily's claims and to simultaneously identify Shannon as having the more persuasive evidence ; Why Shannon can argue that she is not a stalker alongside her very 'stalker-like' video
23:00 Commentary | The downside of Shannon's video and why she has definitely lost her audience by uploading it ; Why there is room for improvement in the commentary community and the paradoxes it finds itself in
26:47 lolcow | High Tech With Grumpo's investigative findings into lolcow.farm's admin ; "Zombie Cookies" and violating data protection | How lolcow, potentially, defamed Shannon and how she can prove this in court
37:55 Morality vs. legality in Shannon's video
39:52 The parasocial paradox | Why Shannon is so unremorseful
48:36 HOW TO HELP EMILY | The 'dislike' button & speculation
50:17 Concluding remarks
REFERENCES
➡️ bbc.co.uk/news/technology-10787882 ("Legal action on 'zombie cookies' filed in US court", BBC News)
CREDIT
➡️ Do check out HIGH TECH WITH GRUMPO youtube.com/watch?v=ORE7ZSUCibQ&t=728s ("lolcow DIDN'T expose CreepShow Art")
➡️ Some great, bitesized commentary from JOHN SWANLING youtube.com/watch?v=MEG1JZZ55UE&t=40s ("CreepShow Art drama EXPLAINED in under 2 minutes")
FEEL FREE TO FOLLOW ME ON MY VARIOUS SOCIAL MEDIA ACCOUNTS:
➡️ Twitter - @kidology_co
➡️ Instagram - kidology.co
➡️ Patreon - Kidology (⭐️EXCLUSIVE PATREON Q&A COMING OUT THIS MONTH!)
