"Proving libel
There are several things a person must prove to establish that libel has taken place. In the United States,
a person must prove that the statement was false, caused harm, and was made without adequate research into the truthfulness of the statement. These steps are for an ordinary citizen. For a celebrity or public official, a per"son must prove the first three steps, and that the statement was made with the intent to do harm or with reckless disregard for the truth,[15] which is usually specifically referred to as "actual malice".[16]
Every piece of information regarding libel says that the plaintiff needs to prove the statement is false. Would absence of proof make it false by default, even when quoting an intimate encounter with no witnesses?
About the gross negligence (let's settle for ordinary negligence), it could be argued that ZQ is an expert on the subject of cyber harassment, has done an actual entity to deal with such harassment and gave a talk on cyber harassment on the UN. Having that sort of knowledge is what makes it entirely different from you or me making a tweet about an experience in our lives. Add knowing the social outreach she knows she has. You can't claim ignorance of consequences when you've had your life "upside down" for 5 years due to a blog post. Negligence doesn't require people on your care to happen.
also, from the Eron chatlogs:
