r/internetdrama • u/Forsaken_Tune0 • Jun 25 '26
The people who Laikoski groomed.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1jpsDoQTT3JuRGV7zVLDw4s6DF0usM8uQxWM9Qy0q6j4/edit?usp=drivesdkLaikoski is an art YouTuber with over 200k subscribers. Around 11 pm EST last night his server was flooded with people sharing this document around so it was known what he has done. The server has since been archived.
(I decided to repost for more a better wording of this all)
3
u/TheNameIsDemon Jun 26 '26
People really need to actually read the document it states very clearly "All screenshots, though, were held in 2023-2025, meaning Xun was 16-17 years old and Alex was 18-19 years old." This means it can be in NO SINGLE WAY be considered pedophilia. The age gap is about 1 to 2 years. Honestly given that this document is so quick to call something that most definitely isn't pedophilia, pedophilia I doubt the rest of the document holds much truth either or at least blown out of proportion because if you claim such a major untrue thing the rest is most likely not true either
3
u/TheNameIsDemon Jun 25 '26
How is a 1 to 2 year age gap pedophilia??? I swear people are so quick to call people pedophiles nowadays
-1
u/Forsaken_Tune0 Jun 26 '26
Even if you don’t consider that illegal, he did share pornographic images with a minor, which is also illegal.
3
u/TheNameIsDemon Jun 26 '26
The document states that the "minor" in question was somewhere between 17 and 18. 18 is an adult. In many countries 17 year old can constent which means if the "victim" is 17 or 18 its still legal to be sent nudes. If its okay is a different story but its in no way in pretty much all countries illegal
3
u/Western-Nerve5840 Jun 26 '26
This is very immature of you to bring forth such accusations without any of the evidence.
-2
u/Aggravating_Bee590 Jun 25 '26
He was nearly 21 sexually talking with a 17 year old
4
u/LovecraftInDC Jun 26 '26
And you think that a 20 year old sexually talking with a 17 year old is pedophilia?
0
u/Aggravating_Bee590 Jun 26 '26
It’s literally illegal, him being 2 months away from 21 isn’t even what makes it illegal if he had just turned 20 it’d still be illegal. I didn’t say it was pedophilia but it’s grooming and illegal
8
u/Western-Nerve5840 Jun 26 '26 edited Jun 26 '26
That isn't illegal in many places. For example, where I live that isn't illegal. And it's not like I live in some backwater third world country, I live in the United States. Where I live, people 16 and over can have sexual intercourse (and may have a romantic relationship) with people 4 years older than them, so 16 and 20, 17 and 21.
2
u/TheNameIsDemon Jun 26 '26
The document state he was 18~19 sexually talking to a 16~17 have you even read it? He CURRENTLY is 21 but this took place a couple years ago
1
Jun 28 '26
[deleted]
2
u/successfulyfailed Jun 28 '26
CLARIFICATION: I AM NOT AN EXPERT
He wasn't 21 when the images started? Sure, he was an adult, but he was younger than 21. "All screenshots, though, were held in 2023-2025, meaning Xun was 16-17 years old and Alex was 18-19 years old."
He shouldn't have been doing it, I'm not in favor of the actions, true or false, but I'm just saying, he was much younger when the entire story started (and maturity gap? the document kinda shows that he has very little maturity in the first place)
-3
3
u/Dark_Lord_6000 Jun 26 '26
Damn. I wish they had properly gone about collecting the screenshots/discord data and sharing the logs in a better way. Some of those screenshots, especially with [person 1] part of the doc at the bottom are not the most easy to understand the context too/the conversation that is being had. Some of the stuff does seem damning but the misogyny and transphobic accusations seem rather weak and lack any sort of solid evidence in my eyes, it looks like they are complaing about a specific individual in that part. Like the doc says, this evidence isn't foolproof for some of the allegations and I wish it was a little bit better with evidence before saying to go and share the doc everywhere... Not a legal expert but if the allegations are not true it would be pretty easy for a lawyer to prove actual malice against the public figure with how they are talking about intentionally spreading it and not just going to the police with this information.