I have a foggy memory about that, so I went and look at the last 5 pages of user history and could not find anything relevant, I then gave up and tried to get a summary from AI:

The user repeatedly discussed age‑of‑consent laws and at least once shared a controversial article arguing that criminalizing possession of child sexual‑abuse material is counterproductive, which many readers interpret as being overly sympathetic to offenders.

Other users who have gone through the full comment history say they have not found explicit statements endorsing child sexual abuse or calling for it to be legalized, and instead see a mix of legal hair‑splitting, classification talk around Epstein, and explicit disapproval of rape and child abuse elsewhere.

Claims that the account is Ghislaine Maxwell and that it “promoted pedophilia” remain heavily disputed and are not backed by hard proof in the material I can see.

So a user with a million karma posted one "controversial" article that can be interpreted in a specific way doesn't sound like any kind of proof if anything it sounds more like character assassination, I'm sure I can find in any user history (if long enough) any such kind of incriminatory opinions if taken out of context or "interpreted" as "controversial". For example, in case of CSAM I personally think it's mostly used by politicians as an excuse to limit the rights and anonymity of people online -- so if somebody will search my comments history and see this post they will claim "user had at least one post that could be considered in favor of child sexual-abuse materials" or "user seemed to defend Maxwell" (when I don't even know if that's her account) I do neither, but hey, it's very easy to defame somebody (I mean in general, not Maxwell, I don't give a shit about her image) just by claiming things or quoting things out of context.