So I’m trying to follow the logic here. Candace questions Leah’s Glacier research. Leah demands specifics. Candace points to problems. Leah calls her an idiot, an AI bot, and suggests she’s a paid shill. Then publicly frames Candace as someone trying to destroy an independent researcher to protect an advertiser. And somehow Candace’s integrity is now what’s being questioned? Did I miss something? I genuinely value this community, but watching people turn on each other over the past month has been exhausting. And this whole situation is doing absolutely noting to help. Can we seriously just stop with the drama already? I’m not here to pick apart Leah’s work as a whole. I’m looking at this particular Glacier research because it’s at the center of the accusations against @RealCandaceO And having gone through the original sources myself, I found factual errors, important omissions,and claims the evidence doesn’t support. Candace had good reason to question this research. So here’s what I found, with sources👇🏼 1. Leah describes the old Glacier Dial as a free service and compares it to the new paid consumer app. But the archived App Store listing she cites says “Corporate or organization subscription” under requirements. That matters. Free to download is not the same thing as free to use, and access through an organization with a subscription is not the same thing as an individual buying a consumer app. The old listing does make stronger privacy claims. That part is worth looking at. But leaving out the subscription requirement makes the comparison incomplete. Source: web.archive.org/web/20240813… 2. Leah contradicts herself about whether Twilio was disclosed. When discussing the burner numbers, she says Twillio was never mentioned in any of the archived privacy policies. Later she says Glacier added Twilio in July. Those two claims can’t both be true. The July 24 policy explicitly names Twilio as a processor for phone number provisioning,calling, and voicemail. Whatever concerns someone may have about Twilio, saying it was never disclosed in those policies is simply wrong. Source: web.archive.org/web/20260724… 3. Then there’s the court-records point. Leah says she searched a federal court archive, found no records for Glacier, and from that concludes requsts must be going to Twilio instead. But that search doesn’t establish that. Twilio’s own law-enforcement guidelines say authorities are encouraged to obtain data directly from customers where possible, and that Twilio can provide customer contact information so authorities can seek further details from that customer. In this context, that customer would be Glacier. This doesn’t establis whether Glacier has received any requests. It does show why an empty court search cannot support Leah’s conclusion about where requests go. Source: twilio.com/en-us/legal/law-e… 4. And finally, the policy-timeline claim, which @Villgecrazylady already flagged in her breakdown. Leah presents a very specific sequence: people started payin on July 13, then Glacier changed its privacy promise 11 days later. But the archived policy copies she cites are from June 15 and July 24. July 13 falls in between those two dates. Those captures establish that the wording changed between June 15 and July 24.They don’t establish which version was live when the app launched on July 13. Leah presents the change as something that happened after customers paid. The archive copies she cites don’t establish that sequence. Sources: web.archive.org/web/20260615… web.archive.org/web/20260724… itunes.apple.com/lookup?id=6…