Yes, there are still many unanswered questions, such as who created the spoof Workplace account and for what purpose. https://twitter.com/ahalam/status/1583041

Yes, there are still many unanswered questions, such as who created the spoof Workplace account and for what purpose. https://twitter.com/ahalam/status/1583041350114500608 https://twitter.com/ahalam/status/1583041350114500608 > Newslaundry asked Meta if they had identified the person who created the spoof Workplace account. "Unfortunately, we would not be able to share this detail as it will go against user privacy", a Meta spokesperson replied. https://twitter.com/Aditi_muses/status/1583044799556296705 https://twitter.com/Aditi_muses/status/1583044799556296705 > They have identified the account but they refused to tell me if they had ID'ed the person (because "privacy"), or if it was created by a Meta employee. Also, the commentary I've seen around the "video proof" seems to mostly infer that it was ignorance or malice to use such an easily spoof-able partially redacted video as proof, but are there no other reasons they would choose to redact info like that? Such as, protection of sources? If you have to redact, then you can't give people full cryptographic proof, and all you can do is describe your process and rest on your reputation (which has obviously degraded for thewire.in now). I'm not aware of enough details to know if protection of sources is even a plausible justification in terms of technical details, but the online debate is so accusatory and empty of information.