>>716117718
>because most ecelebs are abuser, molester narcissist psychos that have years of misdeeds trailing them and when one of them turned into a nail that sticks out, it turns into a contest of who can gather more facts to hammer him down.
I don't think so. I think this is selection bias because the scandals are loud but most people with an online following have no dirt on them, it's just that you never hear of it.
I would bet that out of all the Youtubers with >100k subs most are nothing special.
>>716117953
If you didn't use a tripcode/weren't namefagging then you're good.
Even if those posts were archived, it would be virtually impossible to link those photos to your person.