I thought the reason people side with Depp is because there are recordings of Heard mocking him for reporting abuse and admitting to hitting him, that he initiated the split, and that she gave an op-ed that suggested he was the sole abuser.

Typically there is a primary abuser and often a retaliatory abuser. What is in question is which is which. The concern is that people who side with Depp often do so because of their own beliefs in women being toxic. However, people who side with Heard do essentially the same. I don’t believe a clear picture of Depp being primarily abuser has been established, but would be interested if you had that information.

Edit: also, I’m not on either of their sides. That’s one of those situations where I look at it and slowly back away. I’ll leave it to people who actually know them/have more information.

How so?

This is always the question, and there is never an answer.

I find it funny that you cite that the company is publicly traded as the reason it is following these dangerous paths, but also call it “rigged against shareholders.” I think you mean that it is the company and CEOs job to generate real sustainable growth rather than burn credibility for temporary add ad revenue. However, it is still funny given that most shareholders don’t understand or care why this is a bad move and would be pushing for the ads if they are not already.