The issue is not that Gettr made a good call to moderate, or even that they choose to moderate at all. Gettr can make these decisions. It is that GETTR has argued that twitter can't make these decisions, and that GETTR wouldn't ban 1st amendment protected speech because sites like GETTR and Twitter can't make these kinds of decisions. Right up until they realize that the KKK loves finding new websites where they can openly discuss the failings of the negroid race and (((others))) and that hey, maybe some of those neo-nazis twitter didn't like were actually neo-nazis. Then without acknowlegeing all the bluster about supporting the first amendment and not censoring legal content, they start engaging in what they call censorship when twitter does it.
It is a conflict of what they preach and what they do. That is called hypocrisy. It doesn't matter if GETTR could by some metric be considered to be more supportive of the first amendment. They violated their stated principles re: moderation and the first amendment. That's the issue.
Reddit has had subreddit mods for at least decade, if not since launch. Reddit didn't have much of a mod team itself for a long time. Because users were volunteers moderating only the subreddits they choose to help mod, and whose community accepts them back. This is how fan forums have long moderated and how discord moderates today. Rather than focus moderation on Top-down effeorts, they allow communities to moderate themselves. Discord or Reddit mods should only step in when the community has failed to or refused to moderate responsibly.
Your suggestions are remarkably similar to those put forward by Mike in the protocols not platforms policy. I mean, everything is pollical so having an apolitical space is impossible. Just because it doesn't intersect with your politics, doesn't mean it isn't politics. As well, just because moderation didn't happen, doesn't mean you don't need moderation. If you have rules like no CSAM, you need someone empowered to enforce the rule, or the rule will eventually be broken. And you hit the nail on the head - the more users the sooner someone will break those rules "for a joke". And if you don't deal with it, you get the nazi bar problem.
But you idea for a user moderated experience is definitely something Techdirt has advocated before. Techdirt typically advocates a protocol, where a user can choose which app to view the datastream, choose to employ pre-built filtering schemes or build their own, and has better control of their data. They could have choice as to which algorithms to use to view the data stream. The issue you will continue to face is that of CSAM. Inserting that into the datastream creates a whole lot of unwitting criminals, and by the time anything can be done to hide it by the user, the criminal damage is done.
Removing CSAM from the datastream would be critical, and I have to assume the reason you advocate that no one could remove any information from the datastream is so they can't delete the CSAM.
Withdrawing large amounts of cash isn't exactly easy, even when you use BOA or Wells Fargo or chase. Banks don't like to drain reserve funds that way. Many banks have a daily cash withdrawal limit, likely a holdover from a time when runs on the bank happened like once a decade. If you plan to make a cash purchase out of state, it would be reasonable to arrange the withdrawal with the bank so as to avoid any friction and avoid having to pack a suitcase in the lobby before your trip. If you re-read this, a lot of these cases are from people taking money to make a cash purchase. For private party transactions cash is better than a check, as check fraud remains an easy grift in private party transactions. So reason 1, cash is king but banks dislike large withdrawls.
The second reason others have mentioned. The great depression resulted in families that lost everything and don't trust banks, and that distrust lingers today. Thieves draining your accounts due to a data breach somewhere, like a data breach for the company that handles payment processing for my landlord, is also a concern for Americans that, while probably overblown by the media, leads to squirrelling away money somewhere. Particularly for the risk adverse.
And lets not discount America as the current home for anti-Semitic thought, including Jewish banking conspiracies. You'll get quite the crowd avoiding banks over conspiracies.
As far as 'regularly', its a country of 350 Million people, and the vast majority of seizures are below $100. We see less than a case per quarter that makes big enough news to end up here. I think the only reason we ever hear about them is forfeiture, which might mean its a lot more common, and possibly a lot more common in areas where the money isn't regularly seized we just never hear about it.
I'm currently employed as an accountant. I won local quick computation contest. If you give me 22.11 for a 16.36 bill I'm not giving you a 5 and 3 quarters. You'll get a five, two quarters, a dime, 4 pennies and your dime and penny back. I've been doing this for 7 hours, I'm not getting yelled at by Anonymous Karen for fucking up mental math.
That said, you've given an odd example. The widespread use of calculators is accepted in every workplace. Perhaps you are going for sarcasm, but if so Poe's law has struck here.
As an accountant, my working memory of GAAP rules is limited to those topics I handle regularly. If I only see it once a year, I won't remember it. We have recipe cards for a reason. I used to program C++ and Objective C regularly and had a working knowledge of some functions, but I almost exclusively was looking up other libraries, syntax of various functions, or good ways to handle problems. Doctors don't rely on memory, they rely on reference material. Laywers don't rely on memory, they rely on reference material outside the court and take what they need into court with them.
Reliance on years old memorization is not a viable way to remember everything, and studies suggest most students forget material simply learned by rote memorization, no matter how well you had it down the day of the test.
Because what's the point of a computerized learning platform if you have to grade shit? Testing for understanding in how to apply stem concepts is hard, and grading is harder. Using multiple choice or short answer questions to test memorization is easy to test and grade. But the book undermines that form of testing to actually measure results.
Combined with issues of standardized testing, low pay for teachers, grading being done outside official school hours, Professional inertia, and other national and state requirements to provide simple measurable results that favor frequent testing, and no-book tests are overwhelmingly favored.
It's 100% about whether Moderna should be allowed to steal the patent rights to a technology they developed as a work for hire, got paid $900M for, and don't own.
I highly doubt, as a matter of law, that Moderna signed a contract detailing their development of the vaccine as a work for hire. Indeed, it was pointed out over a year ago that the government grants were not work for hire development contracts, but grants with few strings attached, and absolutely didn't require transfering or licencing the patent rights in any way. Even if the US government paid for every penny of development, the contract is king. Please source your claim that the vaccine formula was developed as a work for hire. Because as you say, your opinion doesn't matter. What maters is the law, and you don't just declare a work a work for hire. There are specific contractual requirements to be a work for hire.
One voice cannot speak as to whether it's legitimate or not for Moderna to be ballhogs.
You seem to have taken Mike's words to mean any amount of profit is okay, when his point was that Moderna can still earn a profit without being "ballhogs". I think under a better negotiator we could have paid less than we have, but I'm not going to be upset that moderna got paid, that they made a profit, or that they made good profits manufacturing the vaccine for the US government. BY abandoning those concerns and not debating the existence of capitalism, I can be free to address the concerns you actually have without having to wade into the shitstorm of cold war politics. I'm going to care that they are trying to lock up the formula via a patent, that they are using said patent to force the badly negotiated prices the US paid to be the prices the world pays, and that they think they are entitled to sole claim on the research.
Changing those things don't need us to deny Moderna Profit at all. We can deny them a patent and they have already made a good profit.
A court should not be entertaining cases where the plaintiff has no chance of winning. My entire argument was that the court has admitted there is no ability to render judgement against twitter, and under that basis there is not standing.
The precedent the court has set is that the court no longer needs to consider its ability to render judgement against twitter to establihs standing. An important legal question was settled. It was settled in a bad way. Take this precident and apply it to someone smaller than twitter and the issues a defense pose hopefully become obvious. Legal trolling works by forcing discovery and a trial on the opponent to force them to fold. Just because twitter is big doesn't mean forcing them to defend this suit is a good thing.
Courts have a formal order of events. After the lawsuit is filed, and initial motions are made, you reach the ‘motion to dismiss’ stage. At this point one or both side(s) can argue there is no need for fact finding, and the case can be judged solely in the applicable law. The ruling that just came out is on that motion. Discovery happens only after the motion to dismiss stage, because discovery supports fact finding.
Tl;DR: discovery is later in the process.
If you’d read the judges words you might be concerned. The judge has noted that many of the claims are facially false. As a matter of public record, dominion systems were used in counties that voted in favor of trump, completely debunking the idea that dominion was biased for biden. Frankly, if anyone had the evidence of fraud, they’d have used it to end these lawsuits definitively already.
i don’t think fox will get as strong a loss as some will think. If they actually pay a significant fraction of the requested judgement i’ll be surprised. But the Judge noted several times that the public evidentiary record does not support the claim that FOX reporters were reasonable to continue to make factual claims against dominion. The real question is if Dominion can prove Actual Malice as a public figure. And that’s the thing. Not all lawsuits against speech are SLAPP suits. Had fox news listened to the cease and desist and continued the election fraud claims without further impugning dominion (or abusing its editorial discretion by letting guests do so uncritically), there isn’t a lawsuit. I assumed the cease and desist and subsequent retractions would end it. Fox has made claims that should be legally adjudicated. So techdirt supports those claims being adjudicated.
Even better. They lose, cable tv collapses, they declare bankruptcy, And if they still have the mob, the talking heads form the Hound network, telling you the real truth from real investigations to expose the deep state. All tge financiers and executives slowly trickle in and they escape the judgement without ever admitting they lied.
MR Artucle? what article is that? I can think of a few news outlets that might be summarized as MR, but techdirt is only referencing back to older techdirt reporting and the 65 page ruling. Tim cushing nor Techdirt could be summarized as MR.
…never state what the specific allegationa [sic] were against Fox
You should ge aware, The techdirt article links to a 65 page ruling, which summarizes all the allegations. you have claimed this piece is too long, that the 65 page court ruling should be summarized in 4-5 paragraphs but also insist that 4-5 paragraphs include summaries of multiple legal filings with dozens of pages of detailed claims? The court couldn’t summarize the case history in 4-5 paragraphs, I’m not sure how you expected Techdirt to.
However, that dominion sued fox is context, but not the ‘essence’ of the article. Nor is the fact that Fox motioned to dismiss. Those were prior events, reported on, discussed, and moved on from. Constantly re-reporting on those points only rehashes a discussion that’s already been had. If you want that context, you’ll need to read commentary on those events. The essence of the article is the new information which prompts renewed discussion - the ruling. The article explores the ruling, and explores the specific reasoning at each step. It uses current events, the ruling, to explore the law, what limitations to our rights exist in the law.
Techdirt is an opinion site. It takes news and comments on it. it has a bias. All opinions have bias. All reporting has a bias. If you want a 4-5 paragraph summary of a 65-page legal ruling, Techdirt would have to choose what to include and what to leave out. Every news story has to choose how much context to include, how much of current events it has to explain to the consumer. How much needs to be left out for time or space or because a doctoral thesis backed by 2 decades of historical study probably couldn’t provide full, coherent, easily readable context for American political theory and how the discussion got to the state it’s in. There is always more context.
Techdirt simply assumed you were smart enough to go read the other sources they linked, or the ruling they provided in its entirety. That you proved them wrong does not make checks notes ‘quoting the judge’s ruling validatingprior advocacy’ a malicious act. Particularly as despite your claimed inability to read provided legal briefs, you seem to think a key issue in this case is being hidden, but won’t defend you claim by telling me what that key factor is. i don’t have links of sources from the Anon coward, unlike techdirt providing them. i can’t go back through your history and learn the arguments you’ve made before. 100 page articles with full context for me, unsourced hogwash for thee, am i right?
Dominion’s reputation is what is most important. To that end, no reasonable settlement can be reached without Fox admitting wrongdoing and providing some sort of assurance tucker or ingram won’t go right back out and say it again. If Fox chose to lay on its sword it could get a settlement from dominion, but i think fox wouldn’t survive.
Remember after the initial legal threat, every host was forced by Fox legal to say on air that claims against dominion have no basis in fact? It hurt them. Same with oAN. Which is why we had that famous moment where an anchor walked off oAN after being forced to read the ‘clarification’ on air and later that week were platforming tge claims again. Admitting they lied, being barred from using ‘hyperbolic language’ or ‘concerned guests’ to try to wiggle out of the admission? Not going to go over well.
Fox built a mob, but they aren’t in control. Not really. No one is. The mob is a bull they are riding for everything they can. They have the tiger by the tail, and just pray it doesn’t turn around. So the last thing they can do is make a permanent voluntary admission of Lying. Particularly with profits shrinking in 2021 even as revenue grows.
That’s why there isn’t going to be a settlement. Fox can accept a court judgement. The secondary media will cover, claiming the deep state railroaded fox. But thet can’t ever admit their lies. And dominion can’t accept a no-fault settlement. it’s not just dominion. Fox can’t afford to alienate the viewers. Fox can survive a billion dollar judgement. Structure it over 10 years and it’s a substantial fraction of profit, but it doesn’t take a loss. they’ll survive. But not if they don’t have viewers.
no one is likely to read this, but i was referred back to this comment section, and thought i’d contribute to the discussion on exclamation points.
In proven Guilty, a horror convention is being held called ‘SPLATTERCON!!!’. Dresden mentions the name appears incomplete without 3 Exclamation points. From this alone, i’d say terry pratchet’s observation is justified. From what you expect might happen at a horror convention in a modern urban fantasy PI murder mystery series, it’s pretty confirmed.
None of this relates to the question of why a US resident, Criticized by (the court presumes) US residents, about supposed actions taken in the US, relating to US politics and US political movements, should be able to sue a US company whom he is contractually bound to sue in the US in BC.
Yes, an appellate court has decided it has jurisdiction. The Article references this conclusion. Id argue the article is about how that is questionable under applicable jurisprudence (i.e. international liability jurisprudence, contract law jurisprudence, and the principle that standing requires the court to have authority to enforce judgement). We can accept a ruling was made, and argue the ruling is logically incoherent. And indeed, I can show the court has ruled it doesn't have jurisdiction under normal questions of jurisdiction, but has abandoned those.
The court knows it can't hold twitter accountable, that Twitter will succeed on a claim that the court can not hold Twitter responsible under BC law. It has said as much. Even if the court has personal and subject matter jurisdiction over Giustra and Twitter, but that does not exhaust the questions of jurisdiction. Under the previously existing rules of Jurisdiction, jurisdiction includes the question "whether there is jurisdiction to render the particular judgment sought."
The court has argued itself it has no power to render the monetary judgement sought as there is no mechanism in law to hold twitter liable, and can not rule on the question if the content of the original tweets was defamatory, therefore his reputation can not be properly vindicated by the court. Claiming jurisdiction over a matter you can not render judgement on because no adversarial a judication is possible without the original speakers defending their claims is a new judicial creation, deserving of critique, criticism, and questions of propriety.
Awesome I get to break out this discussion of language again.
Nintendo has the legal right to moderate content on their platform. To say it simply, Nintendo can moderate mentions of BLM or Covid.
The case study doesn't challenge that. Instead, as a case study, the article presents a situation where legal obligations are clear and instead asks whether Nintendo should. If you've spent any time here you should be familiar with the idea. Does this moderation really serve their goals? How does this moderation choice affect future engagement on the platform?
Limiting the discussion to Nintendo's legal rights is disingenuous and in bad faith.
You can't prove something is safe. "safe" is a subjective assessment of risk. It can never be known if a 1 in a quintillion error would happen, and so any designation of safe is actually a determination that the risk of danger is low enough that we reasonably don't expect danger. The scientific answer to "is this safe?" for something you or I considered safe would be that the evidence doesn't establish that 'this' is dangerous. The claim that they have found no evidence of danger is the accurate statement.
Saying something is safe would be definitive, something we can't genuinely know. Saying there is no evidence of danger means we have studied the danger posed and found the concerns wanting for evidence. In this case, over 40 countries have already implemented 5g in the bands indicated with no issue and we built a safety buffer double the size requested by the engineers. We don't have to trust just FCC data, we can trust the FAA data, gathered from countries around the globe. It already is being done without issue. As noted above by an AC, restricting 5g deployments from the approach path would be all that is needed if there really was an interference issue....but again the data is in and the data does not show an interference issue. if the FAA has different data, it needs to show the reciepts.
Or, if you read the Techdirt article, you'd have read this quote from the source:
"Streaming services such as Netflix, Hulu and Disney+ have their content moved through those lines, but they do not pay the fees imposed on traditional cable TV providers. Austin officials say they should.
Your list shows you didn't read that quote. 90% of your post is railing against a strawman.
If these companies are to be blamed for anything, it’s making human communication so frictionless that every person now has a soapbox to speak to the world.
Id have liked to see a closer examination about how this factor influences the political attacks - both parties have been hit hard in the last decade by voters being able to communicate their displeasure and have it heard, and the ability of voters to keep a topic topical where in previous eras politicians could go silent for a week and let the news pass.
Its a topic Techdirt has discussed regularly in the past - Politicians are being hit hard by the 2-way communication of the internet, just as much if not more than the media companies who are fighting to maintain relevance. Politicians have been seeing real mass feedback in a way that is getting worse for them and moving 'the web' back to the one-way broadcast-like medium of web 1.0 seems to be the move all the powerful want to make.
On the post: Weeks After Blasting Twitter For 'Strangling Free Expression' GETTR Bans The Term 'Groyper' In Effort To Stop White Nationalist Spam
Re:
The issue is not that Gettr made a good call to moderate, or even that they choose to moderate at all. Gettr can make these decisions. It is that GETTR has argued that twitter can't make these decisions, and that GETTR wouldn't ban 1st amendment protected speech because sites like GETTR and Twitter can't make these kinds of decisions. Right up until they realize that the KKK loves finding new websites where they can openly discuss the failings of the negroid race and (((others))) and that hey, maybe some of those neo-nazis twitter didn't like were actually neo-nazis. Then without acknowlegeing all the bluster about supporting the first amendment and not censoring legal content, they start engaging in what they call censorship when twitter does it.
It is a conflict of what they preach and what they do. That is called hypocrisy. It doesn't matter if GETTR could by some metric be considered to be more supportive of the first amendment. They violated their stated principles re: moderation and the first amendment. That's the issue.
On the post: Weeks After Blasting Twitter For 'Strangling Free Expression' GETTR Bans The Term 'Groyper' In Effort To Stop White Nationalist Spam
Re:
Reddit has had subreddit mods for at least decade, if not since launch. Reddit didn't have much of a mod team itself for a long time. Because users were volunteers moderating only the subreddits they choose to help mod, and whose community accepts them back. This is how fan forums have long moderated and how discord moderates today. Rather than focus moderation on Top-down effeorts, they allow communities to moderate themselves. Discord or Reddit mods should only step in when the community has failed to or refused to moderate responsibly.
Your suggestions are remarkably similar to those put forward by Mike in the protocols not platforms policy. I mean, everything is pollical so having an apolitical space is impossible. Just because it doesn't intersect with your politics, doesn't mean it isn't politics. As well, just because moderation didn't happen, doesn't mean you don't need moderation. If you have rules like no CSAM, you need someone empowered to enforce the rule, or the rule will eventually be broken. And you hit the nail on the head - the more users the sooner someone will break those rules "for a joke". And if you don't deal with it, you get the nazi bar problem.
But you idea for a user moderated experience is definitely something Techdirt has advocated before. Techdirt typically advocates a protocol, where a user can choose which app to view the datastream, choose to employ pre-built filtering schemes or build their own, and has better control of their data. They could have choice as to which algorithms to use to view the data stream. The issue you will continue to face is that of CSAM. Inserting that into the datastream creates a whole lot of unwitting criminals, and by the time anything can be done to hide it by the user, the criminal damage is done.
Removing CSAM from the datastream would be critical, and I have to assume the reason you advocate that no one could remove any information from the datastream is so they can't delete the CSAM.
On the post: DEA Gives Former Marine Back $86,900 Cops Took From Him During A Nevada Traffic Stop Caught On Body Cam
Re:
Withdrawing large amounts of cash isn't exactly easy, even when you use BOA or Wells Fargo or chase. Banks don't like to drain reserve funds that way. Many banks have a daily cash withdrawal limit, likely a holdover from a time when runs on the bank happened like once a decade. If you plan to make a cash purchase out of state, it would be reasonable to arrange the withdrawal with the bank so as to avoid any friction and avoid having to pack a suitcase in the lobby before your trip. If you re-read this, a lot of these cases are from people taking money to make a cash purchase. For private party transactions cash is better than a check, as check fraud remains an easy grift in private party transactions. So reason 1, cash is king but banks dislike large withdrawls.
The second reason others have mentioned. The great depression resulted in families that lost everything and don't trust banks, and that distrust lingers today. Thieves draining your accounts due to a data breach somewhere, like a data breach for the company that handles payment processing for my landlord, is also a concern for Americans that, while probably overblown by the media, leads to squirrelling away money somewhere. Particularly for the risk adverse.
And lets not discount America as the current home for anti-Semitic thought, including Jewish banking conspiracies. You'll get quite the crowd avoiding banks over conspiracies.
As far as 'regularly', its a country of 350 Million people, and the vast majority of seizures are below $100. We see less than a case per quarter that makes big enough news to end up here. I think the only reason we ever hear about them is forfeiture, which might mean its a lot more common, and possibly a lot more common in areas where the money isn't regularly seized we just never hear about it.
On the post: Proctorio's Anti-Cheating Software Exposes Students To Hackers Say Dutch Education Officials
Re: Exercise your brain muscles, you slugs!
I'm currently employed as an accountant. I won local quick computation contest. If you give me 22.11 for a 16.36 bill I'm not giving you a 5 and 3 quarters. You'll get a five, two quarters, a dime, 4 pennies and your dime and penny back. I've been doing this for 7 hours, I'm not getting yelled at by Anonymous Karen for fucking up mental math.
That said, you've given an odd example. The widespread use of calculators is accepted in every workplace. Perhaps you are going for sarcasm, but if so Poe's law has struck here.
As an accountant, my working memory of GAAP rules is limited to those topics I handle regularly. If I only see it once a year, I won't remember it. We have recipe cards for a reason. I used to program C++ and Objective C regularly and had a working knowledge of some functions, but I almost exclusively was looking up other libraries, syntax of various functions, or good ways to handle problems. Doctors don't rely on memory, they rely on reference material. Laywers don't rely on memory, they rely on reference material outside the court and take what they need into court with them.
Reliance on years old memorization is not a viable way to remember everything, and studies suggest most students forget material simply learned by rote memorization, no matter how well you had it down the day of the test.
On the post: Proctorio's Anti-Cheating Software Exposes Students To Hackers Say Dutch Education Officials
Re: But WHY...?
Because what's the point of a computerized learning platform if you have to grade shit? Testing for understanding in how to apply stem concepts is hard, and grading is harder. Using multiple choice or short answer questions to test memorization is easy to test and grade. But the book undermines that form of testing to actually measure results.
Combined with issues of standardized testing, low pay for teachers, grading being done outside official school hours, Professional inertia, and other national and state requirements to provide simple measurable results that favor frequent testing, and no-book tests are overwhelmingly favored.
On the post: The US Gov't Paid For Moderna To Develop Its Vaccine; But Moderna Wants To Keep The Patent All To Itself
Re: Articles that speak in their author's voice
I highly doubt, as a matter of law, that Moderna signed a contract detailing their development of the vaccine as a work for hire. Indeed, it was pointed out over a year ago that the government grants were not work for hire development contracts, but grants with few strings attached, and absolutely didn't require transfering or licencing the patent rights in any way. Even if the US government paid for every penny of development, the contract is king. Please source your claim that the vaccine formula was developed as a work for hire. Because as you say, your opinion doesn't matter. What maters is the law, and you don't just declare a work a work for hire. There are specific contractual requirements to be a work for hire.
You seem to have taken Mike's words to mean any amount of profit is okay, when his point was that Moderna can still earn a profit without being "ballhogs". I think under a better negotiator we could have paid less than we have, but I'm not going to be upset that moderna got paid, that they made a profit, or that they made good profits manufacturing the vaccine for the US government. BY abandoning those concerns and not debating the existence of capitalism, I can be free to address the concerns you actually have without having to wade into the shitstorm of cold war politics. I'm going to care that they are trying to lock up the formula via a patent, that they are using said patent to force the badly negotiated prices the US paid to be the prices the world pays, and that they think they are entitled to sole claim on the research.
Changing those things don't need us to deny Moderna Profit at all. We can deny them a patent and they have already made a good profit.
On the post: Another Example Of How The Playing Field Is Tilted In Favor Of Copyright Owners
Re:
Generally, the issues you complain of are ones of copyright ID, not DMCA.
On the post: Canada Strikes Again: Allows Lawsuit Against Twitter To Proceed Over Speech Of Twitter Users
Re: Re: Re:
A court should not be entertaining cases where the plaintiff has no chance of winning. My entire argument was that the court has admitted there is no ability to render judgement against twitter, and under that basis there is not standing.
The precedent the court has set is that the court no longer needs to consider its ability to render judgement against twitter to establihs standing. An important legal question was settled. It was settled in a bad way. Take this precident and apply it to someone smaller than twitter and the issues a defense pose hopefully become obvious. Legal trolling works by forcing discovery and a trial on the opponent to force them to fold. Just because twitter is big doesn't mean forcing them to defend this suit is a good thing.
On the post: Delaware Court Says Dominion Voting Systems Can Continue Suing Fox News For $1.6 Billion In Defamation
Re: Dominion
Courts have a formal order of events. After the lawsuit is filed, and initial motions are made, you reach the ‘motion to dismiss’ stage. At this point one or both side(s) can argue there is no need for fact finding, and the case can be judged solely in the applicable law. The ruling that just came out is on that motion. Discovery happens only after the motion to dismiss stage, because discovery supports fact finding.
Tl;DR: discovery is later in the process.
If you’d read the judges words you might be concerned. The judge has noted that many of the claims are facially false. As a matter of public record, dominion systems were used in counties that voted in favor of trump, completely debunking the idea that dominion was biased for biden. Frankly, if anyone had the evidence of fraud, they’d have used it to end these lawsuits definitively already.
i don’t think fox will get as strong a loss as some will think. If they actually pay a significant fraction of the requested judgement i’ll be surprised. But the Judge noted several times that the public evidentiary record does not support the claim that FOX reporters were reasonable to continue to make factual claims against dominion. The real question is if Dominion can prove Actual Malice as a public figure. And that’s the thing. Not all lawsuits against speech are SLAPP suits. Had fox news listened to the cease and desist and continued the election fraud claims without further impugning dominion (or abusing its editorial discretion by letting guests do so uncritically), there isn’t a lawsuit. I assumed the cease and desist and subsequent retractions would end it. Fox has made claims that should be legally adjudicated. So techdirt supports those claims being adjudicated.
On the post: Delaware Court Says Dominion Voting Systems Can Continue Suing Fox News For $1.6 Billion In Defamation
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Even better. They lose, cable tv collapses, they declare bankruptcy, And if they still have the mob, the talking heads form the Hound network, telling you the real truth from real investigations to expose the deep state. All tge financiers and executives slowly trickle in and they escape the judgement without ever admitting they lied.
On the post: Delaware Court Says Dominion Voting Systems Can Continue Suing Fox News For $1.6 Billion In Defamation
Re: Re: uhhhh....
MR Artucle? what article is that? I can think of a few news outlets that might be summarized as MR, but techdirt is only referencing back to older techdirt reporting and the 65 page ruling. Tim cushing nor Techdirt could be summarized as MR.
You should ge aware, The techdirt article links to a 65 page ruling, which summarizes all the allegations. you have claimed this piece is too long, that the 65 page court ruling should be summarized in 4-5 paragraphs but also insist that 4-5 paragraphs include summaries of multiple legal filings with dozens of pages of detailed claims? The court couldn’t summarize the case history in 4-5 paragraphs, I’m not sure how you expected Techdirt to.
However, that dominion sued fox is context, but not the ‘essence’ of the article. Nor is the fact that Fox motioned to dismiss. Those were prior events, reported on, discussed, and moved on from. Constantly re-reporting on those points only rehashes a discussion that’s already been had. If you want that context, you’ll need to read commentary on those events. The essence of the article is the new information which prompts renewed discussion - the ruling. The article explores the ruling, and explores the specific reasoning at each step. It uses current events, the ruling, to explore the law, what limitations to our rights exist in the law.
Techdirt is an opinion site. It takes news and comments on it. it has a bias. All opinions have bias. All reporting has a bias. If you want a 4-5 paragraph summary of a 65-page legal ruling, Techdirt would have to choose what to include and what to leave out. Every news story has to choose how much context to include, how much of current events it has to explain to the consumer. How much needs to be left out for time or space or because a doctoral thesis backed by 2 decades of historical study probably couldn’t provide full, coherent, easily readable context for American political theory and how the discussion got to the state it’s in. There is always more context.
Techdirt simply assumed you were smart enough to go read the other sources they linked, or the ruling they provided in its entirety. That you proved them wrong does not make checks notes ‘quoting the judge’s ruling validatingprior advocacy’ a malicious act. Particularly as despite your claimed inability to read provided legal briefs, you seem to think a key issue in this case is being hidden, but won’t defend you claim by telling me what that key factor is. i don’t have links of sources from the Anon coward, unlike techdirt providing them. i can’t go back through your history and learn the arguments you’ve made before. 100 page articles with full context for me, unsourced hogwash for thee, am i right?
On the post: Delaware Court Says Dominion Voting Systems Can Continue Suing Fox News For $1.6 Billion In Defamation
Re: Re:
Dominion’s reputation is what is most important. To that end, no reasonable settlement can be reached without Fox admitting wrongdoing and providing some sort of assurance tucker or ingram won’t go right back out and say it again. If Fox chose to lay on its sword it could get a settlement from dominion, but i think fox wouldn’t survive.
Remember after the initial legal threat, every host was forced by Fox legal to say on air that claims against dominion have no basis in fact? It hurt them. Same with oAN. Which is why we had that famous moment where an anchor walked off oAN after being forced to read the ‘clarification’ on air and later that week were platforming tge claims again. Admitting they lied, being barred from using ‘hyperbolic language’ or ‘concerned guests’ to try to wiggle out of the admission? Not going to go over well.
Fox built a mob, but they aren’t in control. Not really. No one is. The mob is a bull they are riding for everything they can. They have the tiger by the tail, and just pray it doesn’t turn around. So the last thing they can do is make a permanent voluntary admission of Lying. Particularly with profits shrinking in 2021 even as revenue grows.
That’s why there isn’t going to be a settlement. Fox can accept a court judgement. The secondary media will cover, claiming the deep state railroaded fox. But thet can’t ever admit their lies. And dominion can’t accept a no-fault settlement. it’s not just dominion. Fox can’t afford to alienate the viewers. Fox can survive a billion dollar judgement. Structure it over 10 years and it’s a substantial fraction of profit, but it doesn’t take a loss. they’ll survive. But not if they don’t have viewers.
On the post: Judge Says Voting Machine Company Can Continue To Sue Trump's Buddies Over Bogus Election Fraud Claims
Re:
no one is likely to read this, but i was referred back to this comment section, and thought i’d contribute to the discussion on exclamation points.
In proven Guilty, a horror convention is being held called ‘SPLATTERCON!!!’. Dresden mentions the name appears incomplete without 3 Exclamation points. From this alone, i’d say terry pratchet’s observation is justified. From what you expect might happen at a horror convention in a modern urban fantasy PI murder mystery series, it’s pretty confirmed.
On the post: Canada Strikes Again: Allows Lawsuit Against Twitter To Proceed Over Speech Of Twitter Users
Re:
None of this relates to the question of why a US resident, Criticized by (the court presumes) US residents, about supposed actions taken in the US, relating to US politics and US political movements, should be able to sue a US company whom he is contractually bound to sue in the US in BC.
On the post: Canada Strikes Again: Allows Lawsuit Against Twitter To Proceed Over Speech Of Twitter Users
Re:
Twitter is protected by the first amendment and the SPEECH act. Section 230 only will speed up the dismissal.
On the post: Canada Strikes Again: Allows Lawsuit Against Twitter To Proceed Over Speech Of Twitter Users
Re: Re: Re: Who is forum shopping here anyway?
Yes, an appellate court has decided it has jurisdiction. The Article references this conclusion. Id argue the article is about how that is questionable under applicable jurisprudence (i.e. international liability jurisprudence, contract law jurisprudence, and the principle that standing requires the court to have authority to enforce judgement). We can accept a ruling was made, and argue the ruling is logically incoherent. And indeed, I can show the court has ruled it doesn't have jurisdiction under normal questions of jurisdiction, but has abandoned those.
The court knows it can't hold twitter accountable, that Twitter will succeed on a claim that the court can not hold Twitter responsible under BC law. It has said as much. Even if the court has personal and subject matter jurisdiction over Giustra and Twitter, but that does not exhaust the questions of jurisdiction. Under the previously existing rules of Jurisdiction, jurisdiction includes the question "whether there is jurisdiction to render the particular judgment sought."
The court has argued itself it has no power to render the monetary judgement sought as there is no mechanism in law to hold twitter liable, and can not rule on the question if the content of the original tweets was defamatory, therefore his reputation can not be properly vindicated by the court. Claiming jurisdiction over a matter you can not render judgement on because no adversarial a judication is possible without the original speakers defending their claims is a new judicial creation, deserving of critique, criticism, and questions of propriety.
On the post: Content Moderation Case Study: Nintendo Blocks Players From Discussing COVID, Other Subjects (2020)
Re: Well...
Awesome I get to break out this discussion of language again.
Nintendo has the legal right to moderate content on their platform. To say it simply, Nintendo can moderate mentions of BLM or Covid.
The case study doesn't challenge that. Instead, as a case study, the article presents a situation where legal obligations are clear and instead asks whether Nintendo should. If you've spent any time here you should be familiar with the idea. Does this moderation really serve their goals? How does this moderation choice affect future engagement on the platform?
Limiting the discussion to Nintendo's legal rights is disingenuous and in bad faith.
On the post: FAA Ignores FCC, Limits U.S. 5G Over Unsubstantiated Safety Concerns
Re:
You can't prove something is safe. "safe" is a subjective assessment of risk. It can never be known if a 1 in a quintillion error would happen, and so any designation of safe is actually a determination that the risk of danger is low enough that we reasonably don't expect danger. The scientific answer to "is this safe?" for something you or I considered safe would be that the evidence doesn't establish that 'this' is dangerous. The claim that they have found no evidence of danger is the accurate statement.
Saying something is safe would be definitive, something we can't genuinely know. Saying there is no evidence of danger means we have studied the danger posed and found the concerns wanting for evidence. In this case, over 40 countries have already implemented 5g in the bands indicated with no issue and we built a safety buffer double the size requested by the engineers. We don't have to trust just FCC data, we can trust the FAA data, gathered from countries around the globe. It already is being done without issue. As noted above by an AC, restricting 5g deployments from the approach path would be all that is needed if there really was an interference issue....but again the data is in and the data does not show an interference issue. if the FAA has different data, it needs to show the reciepts.
On the post: Austin The Latest City To Try And Impose A Netflix Tax
Re: Why only Netflix?
Or, if you read the Techdirt article, you'd have read this quote from the source:
Your list shows you didn't read that quote. 90% of your post is railing against a strawman.
On the post: The Bipartisan Attacks On The Internet Are Easily Understood If You Realize They Just Want To Control Speech Online
Id have liked to see a closer examination about how this factor influences the political attacks - both parties have been hit hard in the last decade by voters being able to communicate their displeasure and have it heard, and the ability of voters to keep a topic topical where in previous eras politicians could go silent for a week and let the news pass.
Its a topic Techdirt has discussed regularly in the past - Politicians are being hit hard by the 2-way communication of the internet, just as much if not more than the media companies who are fighting to maintain relevance. Politicians have been seeing real mass feedback in a way that is getting worse for them and moving 'the web' back to the one-way broadcast-like medium of web 1.0 seems to be the move all the powerful want to make.
Next >>