Online Forums Are Not Primary Sources | Project Bullyish by Lillee Jean Trueman
- Lillee Jean
- 2 days ago
- 8 min read
With Project: Bullyish advocacy rising, as the documentary has most recently had a lovely reception in France, more thoughts have crossed my mind. Firstly, with all my posts for Project: Bullyish, it's vital to get this out now: online forums are not a primary source.
It's easy in the digital age for consumers to be fooled, and for someone to genuinely not know nor understand the consequences of believing such malarky online. That's what a lot of these underground digital media corporations bet on.
Do check out my article, Digital Agencies Creating Hate With SEO For Profit - it's rather in-depth about these seedy corporations' processes. The years of research on my end have led to such enlightening facts.
Sections of this article:
The Ethics Behind Handling Sources
Online forums are not credible sources. Some journalists and citizens today inaccurately reference forums and mistake them for factual information, perpetuating the misleading idea that "the people have spoken."
This is false, absolutely false. I've seen it through my own eyes, how purposefully placed misinformation can cause real criminal harm.
In my own research on the criminal online behavior directed at me, since I was a teenager, many of these "accounts" were connected to digital media corporations orchestrating campaigns for profit. Therefore, not "the people have spoken".
Therefore, how can this be considered "credible" from any perspective?
In my film, Project Bullyish, it documents the systematic, intentional, and malicious acts committed by digital entities, including but not limited to, the creation of intentionally defamatory content, IP theft, identity theft, fabricated monikers, and damaging slogans towards not just me, but also MY FAMILY.
The aforementioned evidence within the film, demonstrates a campaign of digital harassment and intentional infliction of reputational harm, constituting a concerted effort to manipulate public perception through fraudulent means.
According to the Ethical Journalism Network,
"In today’s digital environment, rumour and speculation circulate freely, and knowing what is real and how to verify news and information is essential. Reporters must be alert to the danger of falling for bad information from online sources, whether it is user-generated content or social media. Digital-age sourcing is a major challenge...," (source)
The above quote from the respected document, further brings an argument and establishes that journalists have a responsibility to the public to verify the origin and credibility of all content they produce and source. Thus, when it comes to "user-generated content", also known as UGC, from forums, journalists are forced to ask two questions: "What do I know about the actual origin of this person/content?" and "Have I ensured that all the information can be used and that the conditions for use are clear, and no legal aspects are broken?" Even people should ask themselves this.
Therefore, the guideline confirms anonymous posts, lack foundation, and can't be factual.
Unlike whistleblower criminal cases, or cases where the judge rules for the person to be kept private as a witness, social media, though it plays out a lot like a judge, ruler, and executioner, is not the same, unless it goes to the criminal level.
Sources Verification
If our news, as a people, continues to utilize these unverified metrics, we're lost in a wild world.
Usernames, as you watch local news, on social media, seeing "I saw a post on Reddit that..." - these are not facts. These are unsourced matters.
A real in my eyes, "Why would I trust you?" I need to do my own deep research then, with verified sources.
I miss seeing on the news, an actual name, and where a photo came from, for example. I could trust the source. Nowadays? It's a username. It means nothing. If our very trusted news sources teach our people that it's "okay" to source in such a way, people believe so. It degrades us as a people. We're not human, we're usernames from nowhere.
According to NewsLit.
"...Journalists share the names of...sources with their editors, who assess whether those criteria are met. As the Society of Professional Journalists’ ethics code notes, “Consider sources’ motives before promising anonymity...Motives, of course, vary....News organizations that use unnamed sources owe it to their readers, viewers and listeners to clarify, as much as possible, why the source was granted anonymity, and why the source’s motives did not invalidate the value of the information."
A key point here is addressing the use of anonymous sources, and states that while they can be a powerful tool for government officials, and huge criminal cases for major papers (which normally become subpoenaed to reveal the source in court), the usage of these uncredited sources comes with serious risks and ethical considerations. The public seems to view regular "gossip" and criminal court online now.
Consider my case, as an example. Over the past decade, I've dealt with deepfakes distributed of my body, severe identity theft, and serious criminal threats. With the involvement of the NYPD, FBI for international threats, and the D.A., I can confidently say, there is significant legal liability for those who relied on unverified and anonymous sources.
In my case, many of these "sources" that a digital media company fooled the public with were online forums and fringe Sites.
One of these is a forum, a notorious website, Reddit, known for its lack of factual content, and "snark" boards, thus, within one word, proving problematic. How can the public trust a "snark", with an anonymous "whistleblower" on "gossip", when true crime should be reported to the government, not displayed to draw and quarter someone...which doesn't resolve the issue.
If someone committed fraud, you report it. A truly concerned citizen doesn't plaster it for the public; thus, that anonymous being has motive, and thus it is an unreliable source of truth.
Two of these Sites have been highlighted by journalists and the federal government for containing evidence of past criminals, see Exhibit A from the New York AG about the Buffalo Shooting, where the fringe sites were integral in spreading criminal behavior. All anonymous boards. Not harmless, but criminal. Yet, the venom of these boards' malicious campaigns have a real-world impact.
Above is an example of what ANON boards and placed misinformation can do. A "cult", a "takedown", and clear criminal intent. You will see the intent to create false news articles for the purpose of running a narrative, too.
In my case, an investigation is still being conducted in collaboration with law enforcement in New York. There, they identified the people responsible for the dissemination of a malicious campaign against my family. This campaign utilized deceptive and truly fraudulent methods, including the creation and distribution of non-consensual A.I. explicit imagery of my body.
The people, under malicious corporation's actions, constituted a pattern of several instances of criminal harassment and resulted in criminal conduct directed at my family, endangering us. They fooled the public into believing a made-up story for their own greed.
While the identified entities publicly maintained their own self-proclaimed innocence and almost a sort of victimhood, their true actions amounted to the intentional and illegal dissemination of defamatory content and illegal content toward my family, violating international laws, as well.
This conduct, which served to deceive the public through misinformation rather than true and verifiable fact, is documented in the film Project Bullyish.
Above is another example of anonymous boards, used by uninformed citizens as "fact", and the true underbelly exposing criminal threats, and repeated criminal harassment.
This is particularly dangerous, as those who publish unverified claims from forums bear the legal responsibility of proving their truthfulness, weighing the entire risk against the potential damage to the victim, which anonymous sources care less than zero about.
The anonymity of forums makes uncovering the truth actually impossible, as it's all motive, thus exposing the publisher of said posts and/or their organization to their own significant risks. Such as in my case, where these boards and servers were subpoenaed due to the criminal actions they yielded.
It also exposes the viewer who might spread such information to their own legal risks, and criminal risks.
The Attack
Let's face it. We've seen the news. We've seen criminals go to jail, we've seen whistleblowers on a federal level, we've seen it.
The internet has empowered these deceptive practices of fooling the public mind, that real people are "taking action,"....just like those cases you saw as a child on television.
Truth be told, they're not taking care of YOUR legal bill if you're uncovered through a criminal subpoena.
Anonymous sources are an interesting thing. Why should someone (we're not talking criminally) be able to attack another anonymously, while fooling the public, but the attacked person is not socially "allowed" to prove the source is false?
Neither journalists nor citizens should participate in spreading rumors or citing unnamed sources, long-term our society will be better for it. "From Reddit" is not a credible source; it's simply from Reddit. Anyone can be "on Reddit". This actually highlights that such a source is a "last resort," not legally reliable, but a legal risk for a person.
The Unverified
An anonymous forum has no verifiable authors. It's made up of numerous people hiding their identity, mainly for a purpose. The post's origin, the identity of the person, and their potential motive for writing are all typically unknown, though one can draw their own conclusions.
Due to the fact that the information cannot be traced back to a credible, real-world source (unless a subpoena is warranted), and the motive is normally quite clear as negative, it truthfully cannot be considered a primary source of fact, or a specific opinion, even, from an accountable individual.
In my eyes, it's a collection of unverified, crafted narrative-driven data from media corporations exploiting propaganda to fool the public for their own narratives.
In Closing
In closing, online forums cannot be held to a standard of fact. If you cannot properly source a person to the text, then it's simply text.
Online forums should cease being used as sources for future news, as they propagate criminal behavior, as in my own experience, and fan the flames of driven narratives by the money-hungry.
The NYPD, D.A., FBI, and Homeland Security have been involved due to the dangerous threats she has received. Subpoenas were sent in September 2024.
You can watch Project: Bullyish only on https://www.projectbullyish.com/, and https://filmfreeway.com/LilleeJean_.
Written by Lillee Jean Trueman
About Lillee Jean Trueman:
Lillee Jean Trueman is an actress, director, writer, producer, and filmmaker from New York City. In 2021, Trueman founded Bullyish to spearhead global discussions about criminal online stalking and coordinated attacks. Through her award-winning documentary film Project: Bullyish, she has gone on to shed light on how this criminal process is conducted by digital media corporations online. Through Trueman's own research and by involving appropriate law enforcement, she has continued to make people talk, globally, about the true underbelly of the World Wide Web.
Her documentary project received excellent acclaim abroad from those who have been harassed and stalked. Project Bullyish is an award-winner at the Humro Cinema Film Festival (June 2024), and the documentary won two Official Selection awards from FilmNest International Film Festival (June 2024), and Kurdistan International Independent Film Festival (December 2024) as well. In June 2025, Trueman's documentary touched French viewers through livestreams globally, amplifying discussions for coordinated criminal harassment attacks.
Through Bullyish, Trueman has continued to advocate for various topics related to cyber technologies, including AI usage and IP protections. Above a documentary, Trueman promotes combating stalking online through education, true in-depth journalism, and the integrity of insight into the truth of online dangers.
©️ 2025 Lillee Jean Trueman. All rights reserved. This article contains the personal opinions and experiences of the author and is not intended to provide legal, financial, or any other professional advice. Readers should consult with a qualified professional for advice regarding their specific situation. The publisher is not responsible for any actions taken based on the content of this article.
Comments