Having seen the innards of Powell's lawsuits I wouldn't be at all surprised if she manages to cause Smartmatic's lawyers at least a few facepalms and head-deskings. But then being an annoyance is different than presenting any sort of challenge.
The contrast between what was filed in lawsuits vs what was said to the press applies to Guiliani, but Powell filed some... interesting affidavits in her lawsuits. It might be that she's just a grifter who doesn't believe what she's saying, but if so she went full in on it.
If the defendants can convince the court that Smartmatic is a limited purpose public figure, they can also use "we actually believe(d) what we said" as a defense.
1) While this particular proposed law would apply only to sites with at least 75 million users, the discussions surrounding the topic frequently don't take size into account.
2) Even for this particular law, there might be some non-profits which are that large, like Wikipedia.
3) Even just considering for-profit sites which are that large, users of those sites can be concerned by the impact the law might have on using and experiencing those sites. I'm not going to cheer on a law which makes a site I use worse just because the law will stick it to Big Business. Concerns about laws like these having negative impact on user experience might be unfounded, but in that case you can point out why those concerns are unfounded, rather than just assuming that we're only talking about those concerns because we're pro-Big Business.
Another problem: even if a site scrupulously followed the rules, they can still be sued by users who think that they've been unfairly moderated, and even though the site will eventually win in court it will still cost them money. This particular problem could be fixed by making it a "loser pays" situation, but it appears that Governor Ron DeSantis didn't put any thought into that aspect of the issue. And I'll be surprised if anyone else proposing similar legislature puts any thought into it.
IANAL, but from following some actual lawyers on Twitter I got the impression that Rudy might actually believe what he was saying about fraud, but that he was so incompetent in his filings that he never got the chance to argue fraud in court.
First off, in the case that Rudy actually argued before a judge, the case was being handled by another law firm but was handed over to Rudy shortly before the case was filed. Rudy claimed that do to "miscommunications" with the previous law firm that the firm erroneously removed the claims of fraud in the first amended complaint. Rudy tried to file a second amended complaint with the fraud claims added back in, but wasn't allowed. While all this might have just been an excuse by Rudy as to why he wasn't arguing fraud cases in court, it might have actually been something resembling miscommunication, in that it never occured to the previous law firm that Rudy would want to argue fraud before the court and that it never occurred to Rudy that the previous law firm would remove the claims of fraud. And because there was nothing about fraud in the first amended complaint, Rudy had to say "this isn't about fraud" when asked about the lawsuit, even if he had wanted it to be about fraud.
The second potential screw up would be the appeal that Rudy et al filed. The appeal argued that they should have been allowed to file a second amended complaint, but in the text of the appeal they didn't mention anything about fraud in the second amended complaint. However, in follow-up communications to the appeals court they asked to be allowed to make oral arguments about fraud which weren't in the text of the appeal; they were denied. This might have been calculated on Rudy's part, so that he would be able to claim that the appeals court didn't allow him to argue about fraud, but it's also consistent with Rudy being so incompetent that he just forgot to put the fraud claims in the text of the appeal, and then desperately tried to sneak the fraud claims back in via oral arguments.
I'm not exactly sure what all that has to do with platform liability. Are you saying that if the Reddit was liable for what its users did, they would have banned /r/WallStreetBets, and thus we wouldn't be in danger of a stock market crash?
I counted something like 29 Techdirt specific cookies using the EditThisCookie extension. But I don't see why the mere number of cookies would indicate something nefarious.
In the Detroit case Trump's lawyer managed to submit several hundred normal affidavits. Why couldn't they do the same here?
Then he got even stupider by claiming the narratives the Trump campaign couldn't immediately disprove must be truthful representations. Not being able to prove something is a lie isn't the same thing as finding it to be true, the judge pointed out.
I mean, the same of true of a normal affidavit. But with a normal affidavit is made under oath, and has some third party verify that the person is who they say they are.
Common law is basically the Golden Rule: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
No, it isn't. If it is, provide some citation or reference. Don't tell me to do my own research, because I have down my own research and concluded that you are vastly wrong. I might have researched wrong, but if that's the case point me out to what I should have read to do my research.
Yeah, Baghdad Bob has this conspiracy theory going where any account not used often enough on Techdirt, with a long hiatus, or with sufficiently long times between posts has to be Mike Masnick, waking up in the middle of the night and building himself a sock puppet JUST to show the resident troll up.
I thought that his claim was that inactive accounts get sold to astroturfers.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Kraken
Having seen the innards of Powell's lawsuits I wouldn't be at all surprised if she manages to cause Smartmatic's lawyers at least a few facepalms and head-deskings. But then being an annoyance is different than presenting any sort of challenge.
Re: Know what's funny?
What that article describes isn't "rigging". Try again.
Re: Re:
The contrast between what was filed in lawsuits vs what was said to the press applies to Guiliani, but Powell filed some... interesting affidavits in her lawsuits. It might be that she's just a grifter who doesn't believe what she's saying, but if so she went full in on it.
(untitled comment)
If the defendants can convince the court that Smartmatic is a limited purpose public figure, they can also use "we actually believe(d) what we said" as a defense.
Re: Re: Re:
[rolls eyes]
[flags comment]
Re:
1) While this particular proposed law would apply only to sites with at least 75 million users, the discussions surrounding the topic frequently don't take size into account.
2) Even for this particular law, there might be some non-profits which are that large, like Wikipedia.
3) Even just considering for-profit sites which are that large, users of those sites can be concerned by the impact the law might have on using and experiencing those sites. I'm not going to cheer on a law which makes a site I use worse just because the law will stick it to Big Business. Concerns about laws like these having negative impact on user experience might be unfounded, but in that case you can point out why those concerns are unfounded, rather than just assuming that we're only talking about those concerns because we're pro-Big Business.
(untitled comment)
Another problem: even if a site scrupulously followed the rules, they can still be sued by users who think that they've been unfairly moderated, and even though the site will eventually win in court it will still cost them money. This particular problem could be fixed by making it a "loser pays" situation, but it appears that Governor Ron DeSantis didn't put any thought into that aspect of the issue. And I'll be surprised if anyone else proposing similar legislature puts any thought into it.
Rudy might have been too incompetent to plead it in court
IANAL, but from following some actual lawyers on Twitter I got the impression that Rudy might actually believe what he was saying about fraud, but that he was so incompetent in his filings that he never got the chance to argue fraud in court.
First off, in the case that Rudy actually argued before a judge, the case was being handled by another law firm but was handed over to Rudy shortly before the case was filed. Rudy claimed that do to "miscommunications" with the previous law firm that the firm erroneously removed the claims of fraud in the first amended complaint. Rudy tried to file a second amended complaint with the fraud claims added back in, but wasn't allowed. While all this might have just been an excuse by Rudy as to why he wasn't arguing fraud cases in court, it might have actually been something resembling miscommunication, in that it never occured to the previous law firm that Rudy would want to argue fraud before the court and that it never occurred to Rudy that the previous law firm would remove the claims of fraud. And because there was nothing about fraud in the first amended complaint, Rudy had to say "this isn't about fraud" when asked about the lawsuit, even if he had wanted it to be about fraud.
The second potential screw up would be the appeal that Rudy et al filed. The appeal argued that they should have been allowed to file a second amended complaint, but in the text of the appeal they didn't mention anything about fraud in the second amended complaint. However, in follow-up communications to the appeals court they asked to be allowed to make oral arguments about fraud which weren't in the text of the appeal; they were denied. This might have been calculated on Rudy's part, so that he would be able to claim that the appeals court didn't allow him to argue about fraud, but it's also consistent with Rudy being so incompetent that he just forgot to put the fraud claims in the text of the appeal, and then desperately tried to sneak the fraud claims back in via oral arguments.
Re: Re: As If the SEC cares: We are their Pork bellies
But as far as I can tell, all the platforms did was allow these users to communicate with each other.
In this instance, what separate harm did the platforms cause from the users?
Re: Re:
I'm not exactly sure what all that has to do with platform liability. Are you saying that if the Reddit was liable for what its users did, they would have banned /r/WallStreetBets, and thus we wouldn't be in danger of a stock market crash?
Re: Re: Re: Let's get to specifics!
I counted something like 29 Techdirt specific cookies using the EditThisCookie extension. But I don't see why the mere number of cookies would indicate something nefarious.
Re: Re: Veto proof
If it passed initially with a 2/3 majority, what's the point in sending it back to be voted on again?
Re: Re:
D.C. is under federal jurisdiction, so Trump could pardon any murders that took place there.
(untitled comment)
Has anyone figured out why the hell law enforcement agencies are so secretive about Stingray?
Re:
Oops, turns out I was wrong, and those affidavits were signed under penalty of perjury.
(untitled comment)
In the Detroit case Trump's lawyer managed to submit several hundred normal affidavits. Why couldn't they do the same here?
I mean, the same of true of a normal affidavit. But with a normal affidavit is made under oath, and has some third party verify that the person is who they say they are.
Re: Re: Actually, "Glenn", you just stated agree with Common Law
No, it isn't. If it is, provide some citation or reference. Don't tell me to do my own research, because I have down my own research and concluded that you are vastly wrong. I might have researched wrong, but if that's the case point me out to what I should have read to do my research.
An alternative view
They know it won't work, but they aren't actually going to push it through. This then lets them scapegoat "Big Tech" for all of their failures.
Re: Re: Re: Crawling out on slow day as all bite nails over the
I thought that his claim was that inactive accounts get sold to astroturfers.
Re: Re: Crawling out on slow day as all bite nails over the elec
Pfft, real people don't let "I have nothing new to add to the discussion" stop them from cluttering up the conversation.
More comments from Khym Chanur >>
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Khym Chanur.
Submit a story now.
Tools & Services
TwitterFacebook
RSS
Podcast
Research & Reports
Company
About UsAdvertising Policies
Privacy
Contact
Help & FeedbackMedia Kit
Sponsor/Advertise
Submit a Story
More
Copia InstituteInsider Shop
Support Techdirt