A certain internet celebrity posted a donation screenshot a few days ago, but sharp-eyed netizens discovered it was photoshopped and fake. After the situation escalated, she hurriedly made an additional donation of 200,000 yesterday. Interestingly, the donation record this time clearly showed the serial number 251204—which means the transfer was only made on December 4th.
Isn't this basically admitting that the previous one was fake? What's even more ridiculous is that she's still trying to explain it away as a "misoperation."
View Original
This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.
12 Likes
Reward
12
5
Repost
Share
Comment
0/400
LuckyBearDrawer
· 14h ago
Haha, operator error? The numbers are hardcoded and you're still trying to argue.
View OriginalReply0
BuyTheTop
· 12-05 05:55
Haha, this number is simply the best proof!
View OriginalReply0
WinterWarmthCat
· 12-05 05:49
Operational error? Girl, are you insulting our intelligence?
View OriginalReply0
SolidityStruggler
· 12-05 05:38
Haha, operational error? That excuse is priceless.
View OriginalReply0
GateUser-3824aa38
· 12-05 05:32
Operational error? Girl, they've already locked in this number for you, haha.
A certain internet celebrity posted a donation screenshot a few days ago, but sharp-eyed netizens discovered it was photoshopped and fake. After the situation escalated, she hurriedly made an additional donation of 200,000 yesterday. Interestingly, the donation record this time clearly showed the serial number 251204—which means the transfer was only made on December 4th.
Isn't this basically admitting that the previous one was fake? What's even more ridiculous is that she's still trying to explain it away as a "misoperation."