Anyone that refused to meet in person might be automaticly suspect as far as anyone else was concerned.
The reasoning being that if you refuse to meet face to face, you must have something to hide, therefore either you agree to meet F2F or nobody will believe a thing you say.
Folks that insisted on only communicating by email, text message, or other forms of text-only means would suffer the same backlash.
If you refuse to meet F2F to say what you want to say, nobody will believe you're telling the truth.
If someone that has been reluctant to communicate via F2F suddenly agrees to, the person they're going to talk to may show up with print outs (video transcripts, audio transcripts, printed out email/chats, etc) and point-blank ask the person about said statements.
The questioner will then be able to read the mind, determine the truth or false nature, & then post that fact to the internet for all to read.
The person that got questioned can try to refute the questioner's account, but again all it takes is for the questioner to allow someone else to read their mind, view the memories of talking to the original person, & then let the 2nd-tier questioner post the results.
Eventually the first person will get buried under all the people that have verified the fact that the person is, in fact, lying & thus nobody will believe them in the future.
TL;DR: If you refuse to speak face to face, people would be less inclined to believe anything you have to say. But then again, given the nature of places like FB/Twitter/InstaGram/etc, the prevelence of lies/disinformation/misinformation/etc & those willing to believe such BS, I know Common Sense is more rare than a chocolate Easter bunny with the ears intact... |
