Trump sues big tech

#76
#76
OrangeTsar said:
This is America. You can sue for anything, even spilling hot coffee in your own lap. And as we see with the wacky rulings that we see almost daily it should be clear that all it takes is finding the right judge on the right day and you can get at least an initial ruling in your favour. So why not try?
Click to expand...

This is one of the worst things about America. You shouldn't try because you might be able to pull it off. You should try if it's a just outcome.
 
#78
#78
n_huffhines said:
This is one of the worst things about America. You shouldn't try because you might be able to pull it off. You should try if it's a just outcome.
Click to expand...
And unilaterally disarm by disavowing a weapon that the other side uses against YOU? That would be unwise
 
#82
#82
OrangeTsar said:
I have no doubt that I probably misunderstand it. I definitely remember it.
Click to expand...

I had to study the case when I was in restaurant manager training. That specific McDonalds had been cited twice by the Health Dept before the hot coffee incident for holding the coffee above 190F, which is not potable but does extend hold times by an extra hour. It was so hot that a small defect in the cup gave way as it was being handed to the woman in the car and resulted in burns that melted her sweatpants into the skin of her thighs. It not only resulted in the "Caution: Coffee Hot" cup warning (which I do chuckle at; I'd hope it's hot!) but McDonalds began stricter enforcement of their maximum hold temperature policies.
 
#83
#83
OrangeTsar said:
I have no doubt that I probably misunderstand it. I definitely remember it.
Click to expand...

The part that nobody realizes is that McDonalds intentionally served their coffee at a temp of 200 degrees. They also had actual knowledge that such a temp could cause the failure of the styrofoam cup if squeezed. There were internal memos in which McDonalds acknowledged this and decided that paying out on a few burned hands was preferable to dealing with cold coffee complaints. The plaintiff set the coffee between her legs, the cup failed and the coffee burned her hooha to the point of needing several surgeries.

Plaintiff's attorney sought punitive damages - He told the jury that he didn't want to harm McDonalds badly. That a fair damage award would be McDonalds profits from coffee sales for a single day. The jury bought it, but the judge reduced the award.
 
  • Like
Reactions: clarksvol00, RockyTop85 and USAFgolferVol
#84
#84
ClearwaterVol said:
The part that nobody realizes is that McDonalds intentionally served their coffee at a temp of 200 degrees. They also had actual knowledge that such a temp could cause the failure of the styrofoam cup if squeezed. There were internal memos in which McDonalds acknowledged this and decided that paying out on a few burned hands was preferable to dealing with cold coffee complaints. The plaintiff set the coffee between her legs, the cup failed and the coffee burned her hooha to the point of needing several surgeries.

Plaintiff's attorney sought punitive damages - He told the jury that he didn't want to harm McDonalds badly. That a fair damage award would be McDonalds profits from coffee sales for a single day. The jury bought it, but the judge reduced the award.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the context. It was indeed different than I assumed
 
  • Like
Reactions: clarksvol00
#85
#85
Remember when Trump was supposed to be our salvation from pedos like Dershowitz?

FB_IMG_1625796457045.jpg
 
#88
#88
volinbham said:
Interesting legal take on the idea of social media platforms and restricting use

The Volokh Conspiracy
Click to expand...
I think this may well be what happens. Eugene Volokh is pretty well respected and it’s a good article, but I also think that it misses some distinctions, misstates the issue with social media platforms, and is bad policy. Maybe because it’s a portion of a law review article he wrote.

For example, the shopping mall in Pruneyard wasn’t requiring that shoppers agree to specific terms of service before entering. That distinction raises a question of whether social media is truly “open to the public at large” in the same sense of a shopping mall. By publishing the terms of service in advance a social media company not only makes users aware of who/what messages or activities are welcome, they also set user expectations for what users are going to be exposed to on the platform.

The issue is absolutely not that social media companies are refusing to host particular viewpoints, that’s ludicrous. There are conservatives all over Facebook and the fact that they’re less prevalent on Twitter has not been because they’ve been banned. The actual issue is asymmetrical application of those terms of service.

So if what what he’s advocating is to address application of published terms of service then what you’re really talking about is who has the ability to define what is obscene (something that the government is historically awful at.) Taking that power away from those companies has the potential to render the TOS completely unenforceable. At that point, you may end up with some guy in a Sonic the Hedgehog costume helicoptering his 10” dong on your little girl’s Twitter feed. OR alternatively, you leave the definition of obscenity up to the platforms and you’ve essentially changed nothing.
 
#89
#89
RockyTop85 said:
So if what what he’s advocating is to address application of published terms of service then what you’re really talking about is who has the ability to define what is obscene (something that the government is historically awful at.) Taking that power away from those companies has the potential to render the TOS completely unenforceable. At that point, you may end up with some guy in a Sonic the Hedgehog costume helicoptering his 10” dong on your little girl’s Twitter feed. OR alternatively, you leave the definition of obscenity up to the platforms and you’ve essentially changed nothing.
Click to expand...
 
#90
#90
As I said above, I also don't buy the public utility comparison in that post because there's not the scarcity limitation/lack of alternatives here.
 
#91
#91
RockyTop85 said:
I think this may well be what happens. Eugene Volokh is pretty well respected and it’s a good article, but I also think that it misses some distinctions, misstates the issue with social media platforms, and is bad policy. Maybe because it’s a portion of a law review article he wrote.

For example, the shopping mall in Pruneyard wasn’t requiring that shoppers agree to specific terms of service before entering. That distinction raises a question of whether social media is truly “open to the public at large” in the same sense of a shopping mall. By publishing the terms of service in advance a social media company not only makes users aware of who/what messages or activities are welcome, they also set user expectations for what users are going to be exposed to on the platform.

The issue is absolutely not that social media companies are refusing to host particular viewpoints, that’s ludicrous. There are conservatives all over Facebook and the fact that they’re less prevalent on Twitter has not been because they’ve been banned. The actual issue is asymmetrical application of those terms of service.

So if what what he’s advocating is to address application of published terms of service then what you’re really talking about is who has the ability to define what is obscene (something that the government is historically awful at.) Taking that power away from those companies has the potential to render the TOS completely unenforceable. At that point, you may end up with some guy in a Sonic the Hedgehog costume helicoptering his 10” dong on your little girl’s Twitter feed. OR alternatively, you leave the definition of obscenity up to the platforms and you’ve essentially changed nothing.
Click to expand...

on the last paragraph - a couple points. Twitter is crawling with porn so I'm sure what you described is probably already on there. I'm not advocating one position or another but it seems obscenity standards are distinct from what gets banned under the guise of hate speech or dangerous talk.

the crux seems to be the platforms are choosing which speech fits their view of acceptable viewpoints to hold. one on hand the TOS of private company could protect them; on the other hand the argument from Volokh appears to be if you are public forum for expression you can't suppress expression you don't agree with even if such expression is hinted at in the TOS.

I have no idea which arguments will be stronger.
 
#92
#92
volinbham said:
on the last paragraph - a couple points. Twitter is crawling with porn so I'm sure what you described is probably already on there. I'm not advocating one position or another but it seems obscenity standards are distinct from what gets banned under the guise of hate speech or dangerous talk.

the crux seems to be the platforms are choosing which speech fits their view of acceptable viewpoints to hold. one on hand the TOS of private company could protect them; on the other hand the argument from Volokh appears to be if you are public forum for expression you can't suppress expression you don't agree with even if such expression is hinted at in the TOS.

I have no idea which arguments will be stronger.
Click to expand...
Just to clarify: I was lumping porn, hate speech, death threats etc all under the same umbrella. I get that doubling up and using “obscenity” and the sonic the hedgehog thing made that unclear.

I don’t think the infractions that are receiving bans or other “discipline” from platforms are really that controversial. Their determination of what is an acceptable viewpoint isn’t, or shouldn’t be, controversial. It’s driven by the market and seems pretty mainstream. I haven’t seen many get banned who I thought didn’t deserve it.

The controversy seems to be that Kathy Griffin et. al. make statements that appear to glorify violence and they’re still posting, but some conservatives have been banned for making supposedly equivalent comments.

Maybe that amounts to the same the same thing you’re saying.

I didn’t know that porn existed on Twitter, it never shows up on my timeline, so I guess that’s a question of the extent to which the government gets to meddle with these business’s core competency. If the algorithmic suppression of certain content is fair game for regulation, then how does one justify suppressing the male erection from being shoved in the user’s face but not a post saying that people should run over BLM protestors?

I think the current model does a really good job of letting the market reward the companies that provide people the service that they want. You’re already seeing competitors like GETTR and Parler crop up to try to take advantage of this one thing that Twitter does poorly. Once those companies get some experience maybe their market share will expand.

I wouldn’t have a problem with writing some sort of exception into the law saying that the company could be sued for banning person A upon a showing that person B made a similar statement and didn’t get banned, but the damages would be nonexistent in almost every case.
 
#94
#94
RockyTop85 said:
I wouldn’t have a problem with writing some sort of exception into the law saying that the company could be sued for banning person A upon a showing that person B made a similar statement and didn’t get banned, but the damages would be nonexistent in almost every case.
Click to expand...
NY post disagrees there aren't damages.

Revenue streams are changing. People make money off of being followed online. Getting banned can lose someone money and if it's due to inconsistencies then they can show those as damages. Twitter should be held liable as a publisher if that's the energy they want to have.
 
#95
#95
utvols88 said:
NY post disagrees there aren't damages.
Click to expand...

I doubt it. The banning of one story, for only 11 days, probably generated more traffic to the site and actual story than they would have gotten otherwise. The response made the story bigger than it would have been.

utvols88 said:
Twitter should be held liable as a publisher if that's the energy they want to have.
Click to expand...
This just isn’t a serious solution.
 
#96
#96
RockyTop85 said:
I doubt it. The banning of one story, for only 11 days, probably generated more traffic to the site and actual story than they would have gotten otherwise. The response made the story bigger than it would have been.
Click to expand...
You can't argue that. If that story is left up, it reasonable to say it would have generated even more traffic and it also wasn't for just 11 days as they never restored the tweet and the bombshell effect was over. It's verifiable that the initial time period of a story is pivotal.

This just isn’t a serious solution.
Click to expand...
Neither is the current model. Something has to give. They can't arbitrarily do what they do AND avoid liability.
 
#97
#97
OrangeTsar said:
DOJ is part of the Administrative Branch and Big Tech is not a branch of government so I don’t understand the question. DOJ goes after corporations almost ever day ending in Y.
Click to expand...
For example, the DOJ suing to stop the merger of Aon and Willis Towers Watson.
 
#98
#98
utvolpj said:
You can not like someone and still be able to properly do your job. The media absolutely failed on that when it came to Trump and let their emotions take control

If you don't personally like one of your clients do you give them less of an effort?
Click to expand...
2nd
 
#99
#99
n_huffhines said:
This is one of the worst things about America. You shouldn't try because you might be able to pull it off. You should try if it's a just outcome.
Click to expand...
I agree with this. Make it more of a “loser pays” system and that’ll stop some of it. That might even help with the litigation financing that’s become a factor in driving up awards. Some states do have loser pays laws but very few. TN is not one of them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: n_huffhines
#100
#100
AshG said:
I had to study the case when I was in restaurant manager training. That specific McDonalds had been cited twice by the Health Dept before the hot coffee incident for holding the coffee above 190F, which is not potable but does extend hold times by an extra hour. It was so hot that a small defect in the cup gave way as it was being handed to the woman in the car and resulted in burns that melted her sweatpants into the skin of her thighs. It not only resulted in the "Caution: Coffee Hot" cup warning (which I do chuckle at; I'd hope it's hot!) but McDonalds began stricter enforcement of their maximum hold temperature policies.
Click to expand...
Yeah but there are plenty of other cases where juries returned verdicts that leave you wondering how that many people could be so stupid.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AshG
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top