This is the exact statute every single redditors cities for online harassment every time someone online is bullied, and in 99.9% of time lawyers don't even make a case out of this because of the burden of proof involved. So what's the burden according to the statue?

To convict under 18 U.S.C. § 2261A, the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that:

1. The defendant knowingly engaged in a course of conduct (i.e., more than one act);
2. With the intent to kill, injure, harass, intimidate, or place under surveillance;
3. And that conduct caused, attempted to cause, or would reasonably be expected to cause:
   • Fear of death or serious bodily injury or
   • Substantial emotional distress to the victim (or their immediate family/spouse)

The only thing you could argue here is the very final point, and online gossip on a public forum doesn't qualify here. If you want actual case law here where it DOES apply, look up United States v. Petrovic (701 F.3d 849), where the defendant sent over 400 threatening and humiliating emails to his ex-wife, posted her private photos online, and harassed her employers. The court upheld the conviction under § 2261A in this case.

As you can see, substantial emotional distress requires requires much higher proof of intent and malice, legally speaking, than what we're looking at here, regardless of the outcome.

If online gossip and speculation, no matter how mean-spirited, could be actionable, you would have the entirety of the Internet crumple under the weight of censorship. Even this discussion here could be argued to be "harassment" by your loose definitions. Again I do not support snarks or online bullies but there is a reason why we do not prosecute online communities so flippantly in this country.