To paraphrase another tale; you can clerk for the supreme court for decades, but if you read just one book about sexy fun times with that cute goat from the hot yoga class . . .

Monster romance.

Is that what the kids grew up to call it?

of course you want to know -- yet the attorney is protecting that part of the story (I agree with that stance). it is not anyone's business what she reads. Mechanisms for recording and building a dossier on each device user is exactly to make it a business.. so there are conflicting drives.

If you use a device to access digital content, must your search and preference be made into the fodder of someone else's business ? Access to written material of your choice, without prejudice, is fundamental in the West. These battles were bitterly fought in previous generations.

It’s certainly her right to withhold that information, but it leaves a hole in the published story that makes it much harder to assess whether her description of what happened is likely true.

Right now, I’d say it’s about a 6 on a plausibility scale of 0-10. With the relevant details, she could maybe boost that to an 8… or drop it to a 4.

Vetting things like this is literally the job of journalists so a story can be told while allowing the subjects a level of protection. It’s the difference between a published story and someone just making things up. As a reader, you make the credibility assessment based on trust in the author and the publication.