How to Read Mulholland’s Medium Piece: A Methods & Claims Audit
A counter-analysis focusing on verification, causation, and ethics—so readers can separate evidence from editorial.
This response doesn’t argue that harm can’t exist. It argues that Mulholland’s Medium article blends reporting with advocacy, inference with fact, and causation with proximity. If a case is strong, it survives a methods audit. So here’s the audit.
The Claim Map
Mulholland’s Medium article advances several distinct claim types. Collapsing them together makes debate noisy; separating them clarifies where proof is required.
| Claim Type | What He Asserts | What Evidence Would Actually Prove It |
|---|---|---|
| Consent Violations (on-set) | Withdrawal ignored; position blocks taps; threats while gagged. | Full uncut footage; pre-shoot limit sheets; on-set protocol docs; performer/director testimony from both sides. |
| Intoxication & Capacity | Performer was high; contract signed while nodding off. | Toxicology or clinician review; contemporaneous records; expert opinion specific to observed signs; chain of custody for any footage of signing. |
| Suicide Linkage | Describes ideation/attempts; profiles one death with Rx mentions. | Forensic causation standard: longitudinal mental-health data; expert psych opinion; avoid post hoc ergo propter hoc. |
| Retaliation/Disinformation | Fake blogs, doxing, sockpuppets, harassment. | Attribution evidence (hosting, WHOIS, IP, admin access, logs); platform confirmations; consistent forensic signals. |
| Industry Benchmarking | Kink.com code used as “standard.” | Representative sample of studio policies, guild rules, insurer requirements; not a single-brand code. |
Verification Gaps
Where the Medium article is strongest: detailed anecdotes, memorable quotes, and emotionally persuasive scenes. Where it’s weakest: verification standards that hold up under cross-examination.
- Uncut vs. Edited: Citing final cuts without unedited reels invites editing bias. If raw exists (he claims pre-shoot recordings do), readers should know what was requested, granted, or denied for review.
- Third-party corroboration: Attorneys giving general legal opinions ≠ factfinding about specific scenes. The article needs neutral on-set witnesses, call sheets, time-stamped limit checklists.
- Attribution of blogs/doxing: Alleged sockpuppets and blogs need technical attribution, not tonal inference. Otherwise it’s an invitation to confirmation bias.
Causation vs. Correlation (Suicide & Intoxication)
Suicide: He concedes no direct proof of causation, then layers proximity, prescription names, and affect to imply causation. That’s correlation dressed as cause. Readers deserve the line: what is known vs. what is surmised.
Intoxication: “To my untrained eye” + claims of nodding off. That requires expert review, not narrative inference. If capacity is the hinge, capacity must be established by qualified assessment or contemporaneous medical signs, not retrospective vibe.
“Industry Standards” and Kink.com as Benchmark
Kink.com’s code is one company’s policy—arguably rigorous, but not a statutory or industry-wide standard. Presenting it as baseline law or universal practice inflates its probative value. A proper benchmark would survey multiple studios, insurers, and performer unions.
- Scope: one studio’s code ≠ industry consensus.
- Selection bias: cites the strictest policy to make others look deviant.
- Remedy: compile a comparative matrix across multiple producers and years.
Prevalence Math & Scope Creep
Estimating that a certain % of scenes feature “red flags” without a disclosed sampling method invites exaggeration risk. If the claim is systemic failure, you need a transparent, reproducible sample: time window, N, coder criteria, inter-rater reliability.
Ethics: Independence, Tone, and Source Boundaries
The piece intermixes reporting with activist objectives (shutdowns, arrests), ad hominem about subjects, and personal entanglements with sources. That weakens reliability even if parts of the story are accurate.
- Independence: Vows to help shut down the target and organize protests—campaign posture, not reporter distance.
- Tone discipline: Moralizing flourishes make cross-examination easier for the other side.
- Source boundaries: Sharing intimate or flirt anecdotes about sources is unnecessary and risks harm.
Reader’s Guide: How to Evaluate the Medium Post
- Ask for raw: Were uncut reels, pre-shoot limit sheets, and call sheets reviewed? If not, why not?
- Separate feelings from findings: Which paragraphs rely on expert analysis vs. “to my untrained eye”?
- Demand attribution: Which harassment claims are technically attributed (host records, IPs) vs. inferred?
- Spot benchmark inflation: Is Kink.com presented as law/standard without comparative data?
- Watch the math: Any prevalence claims should disclose sample, window, criteria, and coder reliability.