I would disagree that's the main focus. It's good information supported by specific stories. The specific people there are: a person who got out and was happy t

I would disagree that's the main focus. It's good information supported by specific stories. The specific people there are: a person who got out and was happy to talk about it, a local tattoo artist who was talking about warning people and wasn't photographed/interviewed while drugged, and finally Kim who actually doesn't seem to provide much value. But that's still a small part next to the extra history, context, description of scope, information about helpers/volunteers, and a group photo which wouldn't be enough to identify the people in it. > the main focus is on how fucked up a small number of specific people are So no, I feel like we're looking at a completely different article. I don't see that as the focus at all.