3 ms·

Not at all. I'm not complaining about Cloudflare or Voxility dropping customers. I'm complaining about the press using their influence to pressure those compani

Not at all. I'm not complaining about Cloudflare or Voxility dropping customers. I'm complaining about the press using their influence to pressure those companies into dropping customers. You're still free to drop a customer for whatever reason. I just want the press to be held accountable for the torts they're committing and the economic harm they are causing.

FDSGSG 7y ago
Ah, so freedom of association is OK. Freedom of speech is not though? > press using their influence to pressure those companies into dropping customers So what does that even look like? Odds are it looks like this: "Hey, I'm working on a story about 8chan and heard you guys host them. Do you have anything to say about that?" I guess what you're saying is that the press should just not be allowed to report on this stuff. >torts they're committing such as? IANAL, but the first amendment provides strong protections against tortious interference claims.
- ThrustVectoring 7y ago
  I'm not a free speech absolutist. If you cause certain established categories of harm, you should be held liable for the damages you cause. Specific example: https://mobile.twitter.com/alexstamos/status/1158392795687575554 https://mobile.twitter.com/alexstamos/status/115839279568757... BitMitigate has a case for tortious interference over this tweet, IMO. Alex knew of contracts between BitMitigate and 8chan (or Voxility), used his influence to induce Voxility to make it impossible for BitMitigate to fulfill their 8chan contract (or for the breach of their voxility contract), Alex was not privileged to interfere, and there were economic damages suffered. That's all the elements necessary for a tortious interference with contract claim. >IANAL, but the first amendment provides strong protections against tortious interference claims. Indeed it does. Generally, merely sharing truthful information does not provide a basis for tortious interference. The problem I have isn't that these sorts of statements are false, but that they come attached with a threat of an active negative PR campaign. The format of twitter makes this particularly salient, since it makes it easy to get viral traction and hard to communicate extensive information. And the tweet I linked earlier didn't tell Voxility anything it didn't already know, it simply publicized things and used the author's influence coercively.
  - FDSGSG 7y ago
    >threat of an active negative PR campaign I'm sorry, but this doesn't feel like an accurate characterisation. Stamos isn't financing or organising an actual PR campaign, he's just publicly telling the truth. If the truth happens to be outrageous, that's not his fault. >And the tweet I linked earlier didn't tell Voxility anything it didn't already know Dunno, Voxility is huge. >it simply publicized things and used the author's influence coercively. If the truth is coercive, perhaps that's not on the author?
    - ThrustVectoring 7y ago
      It absolutely is organizing and advocating a campaign: https://mobile.twitter.com/alexstamos/status/1158029189896736768 https://mobile.twitter.com/alexstamos/status/115802918989673... >If the truth is coercive, perhaps that's not on the author? You're ignoring the context. Blue check with 50k followers who has testified to congress on tech matters, multiple followup tweets @voxility by others, and intense media scrutiny of 8chan and their business partners following the El Paso shooting. The exact same tweet made as a DM would not have anywhere near the pressure as what they did. The publicity itself is pressure; this is why corporate twitter accounts try to take your tweeted complaints into DMs as soon as possible.

FDSGSG 7y ago

Ah, so freedom of association is OK. Freedom of speech is not though? > press using their influence to pressure those companies into dropping customers So what does that even look like? Odds are it looks like this: "Hey, I'm working on a story about 8chan and heard you guys host them. Do you have anything to say about that?" I guess what you're saying is that the press should just not be allowed to report on this stuff. >torts they're committing such as? IANAL, but the first amendment provides strong protections against tortious interference claims.

ThrustVectoring 7y ago
I'm not a free speech absolutist. If you cause certain established categories of harm, you should be held liable for the damages you cause. Specific example: https://mobile.twitter.com/alexstamos/status/1158392795687575554 https://mobile.twitter.com/alexstamos/status/115839279568757... BitMitigate has a case for tortious interference over this tweet, IMO. Alex knew of contracts between BitMitigate and 8chan (or Voxility), used his influence to induce Voxility to make it impossible for BitMitigate to fulfill their 8chan contract (or for the breach of their voxility contract), Alex was not privileged to interfere, and there were economic damages suffered. That's all the elements necessary for a tortious interference with contract claim. >IANAL, but the first amendment provides strong protections against tortious interference claims. Indeed it does. Generally, merely sharing truthful information does not provide a basis for tortious interference. The problem I have isn't that these sorts of statements are false, but that they come attached with a threat of an active negative PR campaign. The format of twitter makes this particularly salient, since it makes it easy to get viral traction and hard to communicate extensive information. And the tweet I linked earlier didn't tell Voxility anything it didn't already know, it simply publicized things and used the author's influence coercively.
- FDSGSG 7y ago
  >threat of an active negative PR campaign I'm sorry, but this doesn't feel like an accurate characterisation. Stamos isn't financing or organising an actual PR campaign, he's just publicly telling the truth. If the truth happens to be outrageous, that's not his fault. >And the tweet I linked earlier didn't tell Voxility anything it didn't already know Dunno, Voxility is huge. >it simply publicized things and used the author's influence coercively. If the truth is coercive, perhaps that's not on the author?
  - ThrustVectoring 7y ago
    It absolutely is organizing and advocating a campaign: https://mobile.twitter.com/alexstamos/status/1158029189896736768 https://mobile.twitter.com/alexstamos/status/115802918989673... >If the truth is coercive, perhaps that's not on the author? You're ignoring the context. Blue check with 50k followers who has testified to congress on tech matters, multiple followup tweets @voxility by others, and intense media scrutiny of 8chan and their business partners following the El Paso shooting. The exact same tweet made as a DM would not have anywhere near the pressure as what they did. The publicity itself is pressure; this is why corporate twitter accounts try to take your tweeted complaints into DMs as soon as possible.