Even though the nine members are very friendly to Altman, they are also sufficiently professional class people, Responsible Authority Figures of a type, that one would expect the board to have real limits,
Maybe I’m making some mistake, since I haven’t followed it closely, but this very same board was on track to sign off on the original deal that you found completely unacceptable, was it not? These exact same “Professional class Responsible Authority Figures” were about to give up control, do obvious damage to the nonprofit’s mission, and go off and do “generic nonprofit” things while Altman and investors ran everything? The deal couldn’t have happened without a majority of that board?
If that’s true, I don’t see how you could possibly imagine that they’re suitable people to oversee anything that would demand they show any backbone. They’ve already capitulated once, or at least signaled every intention of doing so.
And, to be honest, Professional class Responsible Authority Figures are usually not the people you want when a boat may have to be rocked.
Both...
and
… could easily both be completely accurate descriptors of the same video (assuming that this Mila Monet person, or her supposed stepsister, is in fact a “hot blonde girl”).
Furthermore, the second could be rated as an accurate descriptor of a video that didn’t actually have any content indicating that anybody was anybody’s stepsister, just because the video contained somebody who plausibly could be somebody’s stepsister. You could retitle a video that wasn’t originally supposed to have a “stepsister” theme at all, and still get an accurate rating. The only thing that makes it a “stepsister” video is the (probably usually false) claim that it’s one, and that claim can be made equally well by the title and the content.