Last week Samira Jalil participated as a panelist on the program “At Home with Telemundo”, talking about everything happening in the entertainment world. Among those news stories emerged the scandal involving Guty Carrera and Brenda Zambrano. The Mexican influencer made a video implying that her ex, Guty Carrera, was "stalking" her on Instagram because, overnight, three likes appeared on three of her recent photos in less than an hour. These likes supposedly came from Guty's official Instagram account. What did Samira say, and what were the consequences? Samira discussed this situation with Carlos Adyan and Roberto Romano. The three concluded that the whole thing seemed like a poorly staged setup. Meanwhile, Jalil asserted that Guty has a good relationship with Alana Lliteras and that everything surrounding this scandal was primarily a fabrication by Zambrano. Samira's entire statement and her stance in favor of Guty Carrera ultimately backfired on the content creator. Hours later, her Instagram account suffered a "cyberattack." Samira reacted immediately, pointing the finger at Brenda Zambrano as the alleged culprit of the "hack." This whole situation has only made the public believe even less in Brenda Zambrano and has led to accusations that she's trying to get attention by talking about an ex-boyfriend who doesn't even mention her when questioned about her past love life. What happened in the hack of Guty Carrera's accounts? Prior to Zambrano's video, Guty had already posted a video explaining that his accounts had been hacked from one of his work accounts, @gutyproductos. Along with the statement, I have explained how your account's security had been compromised and the steps to take to recover it. For Carrera's followers, it's obvious that Brenda is trying to mock Guty Carrera's explanations, implying that he's still interested in her. However, the whole thing is absurd. The evidence shown on social media with Guty's alleged likes on Zambrano's posts only reveals three likes on three recent photos, proving that this was as momentary as it was fleeting, and therefore so "random" that it raises more questions than answers about its veracity.