Okay I misundertood. Nevertheless, it still appears to me you making overly-strong factual claims in your original post. That is not a good sign for witch-hunt post.
With the exception of incorrectly assuming that kushed was an acknowledged nextgen account , i made no factual claims that were not backed with evidence.
Don't believe me?
Recently, there has been a good deal of controversy about user @ozchartart.
Factual assertion and provably true
The narrative that we have all heard is that OZ is just an innocent victim, caught in between the allegedly dishonest whales upvoting him and allegedly intolerant whales downvoting him.This narrative is not entirely accurate.
Not a factual assertion. Interpretive
In this post, i intend to explain the real relationship that OZ has with those voting for him.
tbh, i think this is poorly worded. Its meant to distinguish the "real relationship" from the one that exists in much of the narrative (that ive seen). "explore the nature of the relationship between oz and NGC" would h ave been better. Still, i don't know as this rises to the level of an unproven factual assertion.
I take no position on whether this relationship is necessarily unethical or harmful to the platform. However, i think honesty and transparency is important.
opinion
The notion that ozchart is some random poster who got lucky (or through skill) attracted the attention of important patrons, and is now being punished for his success is simply not supported by facts.
Interpretive
@ozchartart also has a second account called @ozmaster. This account is actually older it was mined on april 7. You can see the first POW it found here. https://steemd.com/tx/09867b2f6b6823dda274ba5abc60742b972a4b5f
provable factual assertion
Of these 17 votes, 6 were for posts by people that appear to be completely independent of @berniesanders: @team, @riverhead, @clayop, @blocktrades, @au1nethyb1, and @golovachlen
provable factual assertion
I could go on, but it would just be more like that.
What you, and others, seem to take exception to is that people looking at these facts might interpret them in a way with which you disagree. but they are just facts. not a witch hunt.