Despite not being televised like some other infamous celebrity trials in the US, the trial of Sean "Diddy" Combs still kept people riveted — perhaps due to the allegations he'd faced.

On July 2, the 55-year-old — a titan of the 1990s and 2000s hip-hop scene — was found guilty on two counts of transportation to engage in prostitution, but was acquitted of the most serious charges of racketeering and sex trafficking.

His seven-week trial began on May 12, where a jury of 12 heard testimonies of 34 witnesses, including ex-girlfriends, former employees of Combs, male escorts and federal agents.

At the time of writing, lawyers of the Bad Boy Records founder were working to get him released on bail. 

Different parties also weighed in throughout the trial: legacy media, TikTokers, YouTubers, influencers, even AI (steered, as yet, by humans looking to make a quick buck).

Thus, the trial of the United States of America v. Sean Combs, a/k/a "Puff Daddy," a/k/a "P. Diddy," a/k/a "Diddy," a/k/a "PD," a/k/a "Love" (the case's full name) wasn't just about an entertainment mogul charged with serious federal and sexual offences.

It has also trained the spotlight on issues of sexual consent, power imbalances and "truth" in diverse echo chambers.

Consent vs. coercion

According to the 17-page indictment against Combs, he "abused, threatened and coerced women and others around him to fulfill his sexual desires, protect his reputation and conceal his conduct."

Prosecutors alleged Combs used his wealth and influence to coerce two girlfriends to take part in drug-fueled, days-long sexual performances, also known as "freak offs."

Cassandra "Cassie" Ventura, a singer and Combs' ex-partner of 11 years, testified that she was manipulated and assaulted during their relationship. A 2016 video showing Combs attacking Ventura in a hotel hallway was presented in court, prompting Assistant US Attorney Christy Slavik to describe Combs as "a leader of a criminal enterprise who doesn't take no for an answer."

Yet Combs' legal team countered that the relationships and parties were consensual. Yes, they said, his "swinger lifestyle" was unconventional — but not illegal. Instead, they accused Ventura and others of financial motives, citing her $20 million settlement in 2023 besides other alleged hush money agreements.

#MeToo vs. the manosphere

The "Why didn't she just leave?" stance also ignited debate among online communities and advocacy groups.

Some media figures associated with the "manosphere" — a loosely defined network of often toxic, male-centric commentators — had voiced skepticism about Ventura's allegations, suggesting instead that she was looking to cash in. 

For instance, YouTuber Greg Adams said on his Free Agent Lifestyle channel, "There's no accountability on her part. Everything is: 'My brain still ain't developed, he slipped me a drug, he tricked me,' when it should've been: 'I was 21, Diddy was a damn near millionaire kabillionaire and I was upgrading.'"

Speaking to ABC News, Carolyn West, a professor of clinical psychology at the University of Washington, said that perpetrators may psychologically manipulate their partners into thinking that they're overexaggerating the abuse being experienced.

She added that where the perpetrator is someone with a high profile, the survivor may be fearful of leaving because they may be seen as less credible than their abuser, and the high-profile person may have money or power that they can use to control their abused partner, including coercing them to remain in the relationship against their will.

The Combs trial also coincided with the rape and sexual abuse retrial of filmmaker Harvey Weinstein, against whom sexual abuse allegations were made in October 2017 that sparked the #MeToo movement.

Some have since questioned the movement's efficacy, citing the outcome of the Johnny Depp-Amber Heard trial or the fact that Donald Trump was found liable for defaming and sexually abusing writer E. Jean Carroll over an alleged incident in the 1990s, and then still won the presidential election. 

Speaking at the sidelines of the Combs case, Gloria Allred, who has represented clients in the Weinstein case, told ABC News: "People keep saying to me the #MeToo movement is dead. There's no evidence of that… It's alive and well."

Legacy media vs. content creators

The non-televised trial of Combs has also provided fodder for influencers and YouTubers. Alongside traditional media, these content creators have been livestreaming their takes on the case from the Manhattan federal courthouse.

According to a 2024 Pew Research Center study, one in five Americans get news from influencers online; for people under 30, the share is 37%.

Speaking to news agency AFP, Reece Peck, an associate professor of political communication and journalism at the City University of New York, called the competition among content creators "Darwinian."

"They're so scared of losing their clientele or their audience. And so with that logic, that you have to constantly create content, the news cycle is such an attractive source of material," he said, adding that Combs' trial is a fount: "It's sex, it's violence and it's celebrity."

Facts vs. AI slop

AI-generated misinformation — often called "AI slop" — also surged around the Diddy trial, as nearly two dozen anonymous YouTube channels published around 900 videos using fabricated thumbnails, fake celebrity quotes and deepfakes related to the case.

A report by Indicator and The Guardian found these clips amassed roughly 70 million views, often falsely claiming singers like Justin Bieber or Jay-Z "testified" or made shocking revelations.

One creator admitted that launching a "Diddy channel" was "probably the quickest route to making $50,000," underscoring how such content is monetized. 

Although YouTube removed or demonetized several channels, sensational, low-quality AI media has the potential to cloud people's understanding of trials, and maybe even overshadow actual judicial proceedings.

Edited by: Elizabeth Grenier