The shotgun approach (suing FB, TikTok, Snapchat, and Google simultaneously) makes this sound as ridiculous as the punchline "woman sues McDonalds for coffee being too hot" (distinct from that actual case, which was less ridiculous than the headline).
replySuing Facebook for systematically behaving badly is one thing, if you can prove it and prove it harmed you.
Suing _everybody_ is one random person getting rich for… being mad at the world she was born into?
> Suing _everybody_ is one random person getting rich for… being mad at the world she was born into?
replyNothing wrong with getting mad at the world when the world is complete and utter garbage to you.
Maybe if most people would agree the corporation is big and bad and should have penalties, it’s more democratic to go with that decision that the decision nine unelected philosopher kings come up with.
replyThanks for this take. Also explains why this did not result in much stock price movement today
replyAlso at least partially explained by being priced in. The trial was known about and given the conditions described in GP it's not surprising that the verdict went this way.
replyYeah there are so many reasons this could be reversed on appeal. Whether the judge correctly held questions of section 230, and the First Amendment, is not obvious.
reply[dead]
reply