4 ms·
That’s...not evidence of a facebook employee being implicated. It’s actually not even evidence that the account even swapped hands!
by heyoni 6y ago
That’s...not evidence of a facebook employee being implicated. It’s actually not even evidence that the account even swapped hands!
- otterley 6y ago> It’s actually not even evidence that the account even swapped hands! Do you honestly believe a jury of average people would agree with this proposition? It seems contrary to common sense. Keep in mind that there is a significant difference between what meets the relevancy bar in court, and what is logically probative. See, e.g., https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_401 https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_401
- jknz 6y agoThe victim is a real person with a PhD thesis that anyone can read. Why would someone jeopardize his reputation by using his real name on some kind of staging of a fake account swap? I kindly disagree with your second sentence.
- diab0lic 6y ago> That’s...not evidence of a facebook employee being implicated. The account messaged and said a facebook employee was involved. It isn't proof, it isn't strong evidence, but it is evidence and an implication that a facebook employee was involved. > It’s actually not even evidence that the account even swapped hands! Similarly the change in account usage pattern isn't proof but it is evidence.