5 ms·

When several vendors drop the same customer at the same time, and there are no state attorneys general bringing legal actions (and thus no grounds to assert ill

When several vendors drop the same customer at the same time, and there are no state attorneys general bringing legal actions (and thus no grounds to assert illegal activity), then it seems like conspiracy to destroy a business, and a likely cause of action for tortious interference and possibly a RICO violation.

simonh 6y ago
You’d have to prove conspiracy, but there’s no reason to believe any of these businesses conspired with each other.
- skynet-9000 6y ago
  You don't necessarily need a smoking gun email. There's a (probably quite strong) case to be made that the timing -- all of these actions within 24 hours of each other -- is the proof of conspiracy.
- skynet-9000 6y ago
  Why did my other comment, that the timing is a possible proof of conspiracy, get flagged? Can someone enlighten me -- in what way does that violate site guidelines?
- skynet-9000 6y ago
  Why did my question get flagged as well? One of the moderators or someone with flagging power is rather quick on the flagging button. Seems like downvoting would be more appropriate, especially given the context of this discussion.
- skynet-9000 6y ago
  @dang why are these responses being flagged?
- candybar 6y ago
  That's too generous. Even if these these businesses "conspired" to do this, that's still not a conspiracy in a legal sense, which is about an agreement to commit an actual crime. As it's not a crime to end business relationships with an entity (which btw almost certainly has been in violation of TOS), no amount of prior coordination would make this a conspiracy. It's not illegal to conspire to do something that's otherwise perfectly legal.
  - skynet-9000 6y ago
    Appreciate that response. I was referring to conspiracy to commit tortious interference civilly. And you're right, RICO or similar in a criminal case would require a much higher standard of proof.
  - soneil 6y ago
    Besides the obvious correlation to an external event, I think another major factor here is the rolling stone effect - "x, y, and z removed $(abhorrent content), why didn't you?". No-one wants to be left holding this hot potato. I believe a conspiracy (in the legal sense) requires communication - peer pressure doesn't.
grzm 6y ago
When the hills are on fire, it's not a conspiracy when everyone starts fighting fire to protect their homes. One of the pernicious aspects of conspiracy theories is that, when pressed for evidence or presented with evidence contrary to their beliefs, those arguing for the conspiracy fall back to another level of conspiracy.
- skynet-9000 6y ago
  Conspiracy is a legal term and used here in a context unrelated to conspiracy theories, but to your point: what if all of the hills start on fire at the same time?
  - grzm 6y ago
    They tend to do that. It's not hard to see the events of January 6 as a conflagration that caught a lot of attention and people looking for sources of water (to bend this analogy to well beyond usefulness). Edit to add: if you're going to argue legal conspiracy, you're going to have to provide evidence that isn't circumstantial. Russell's Teapot, and all that.
  - skynet-9000 6y ago
    @grzm, sorry can't reply to you. I agree, there can be a strong case to be made that it's just a coincidence and they all moved on the same external event just because they were all meaning to anyway. It also seems like a case could be made that it wasn't a coincidence as well. I doubt we'll ever know, since I don't think Parler will ever take any action in this direction.
    - dredmorbius 6y ago
      NB re: your comments being flagged. That's user actions (admin results in "dead"), though HN may be tuned more sensitively, particularly for a highly-active green (new) account. Prior history may be associated. Recent days (and months) have been fraught. There's a contact email in the FAQ. You can request action, though that doesn't seem overly justified here. Guidelines are also worth aa review. Discussing voting is strongly discouraged. Emotion runs high on political threads. It's useful to carefully consider what you write, how much evidence you present, plausible alternatives, and tone.
dredmorbius 6y ago
Or perhaps the indictments are sealed.
- skynet-9000 6y ago
  That seems reasonable. Of course, it wouldn't be useful as a defense in a civil case. (And, indictments for what? Section 230 protects Parler anyway.)

simonh 6y ago

You’d have to prove conspiracy, but there’s no reason to believe any of these businesses conspired with each other.

skynet-9000 6y ago
You don't necessarily need a smoking gun email. There's a (probably quite strong) case to be made that the timing -- all of these actions within 24 hours of each other -- is the proof of conspiracy.
skynet-9000 6y ago
Why did my other comment, that the timing is a possible proof of conspiracy, get flagged? Can someone enlighten me -- in what way does that violate site guidelines?
skynet-9000 6y ago
Why did my question get flagged as well? One of the moderators or someone with flagging power is rather quick on the flagging button. Seems like downvoting would be more appropriate, especially given the context of this discussion.
skynet-9000 6y ago
@dang why are these responses being flagged?
candybar 6y ago
That's too generous. Even if these these businesses "conspired" to do this, that's still not a conspiracy in a legal sense, which is about an agreement to commit an actual crime. As it's not a crime to end business relationships with an entity (which btw almost certainly has been in violation of TOS), no amount of prior coordination would make this a conspiracy. It's not illegal to conspire to do something that's otherwise perfectly legal.
- skynet-9000 6y ago
  Appreciate that response. I was referring to conspiracy to commit tortious interference civilly. And you're right, RICO or similar in a criminal case would require a much higher standard of proof.
- soneil 6y ago
  Besides the obvious correlation to an external event, I think another major factor here is the rolling stone effect - "x, y, and z removed $(abhorrent content), why didn't you?". No-one wants to be left holding this hot potato. I believe a conspiracy (in the legal sense) requires communication - peer pressure doesn't.

grzm 6y ago

When the hills are on fire, it's not a conspiracy when everyone starts fighting fire to protect their homes. One of the pernicious aspects of conspiracy theories is that, when pressed for evidence or presented with evidence contrary to their beliefs, those arguing for the conspiracy fall back to another level of conspiracy.

skynet-9000 6y ago
Conspiracy is a legal term and used here in a context unrelated to conspiracy theories, but to your point: what if all of the hills start on fire at the same time?
- grzm 6y ago
  They tend to do that. It's not hard to see the events of January 6 as a conflagration that caught a lot of attention and people looking for sources of water (to bend this analogy to well beyond usefulness). Edit to add: if you're going to argue legal conspiracy, you're going to have to provide evidence that isn't circumstantial. Russell's Teapot, and all that.
- skynet-9000 6y ago
  @grzm, sorry can't reply to you. I agree, there can be a strong case to be made that it's just a coincidence and they all moved on the same external event just because they were all meaning to anyway. It also seems like a case could be made that it wasn't a coincidence as well. I doubt we'll ever know, since I don't think Parler will ever take any action in this direction.
  - dredmorbius 6y ago
    NB re: your comments being flagged. That's user actions (admin results in "dead"), though HN may be tuned more sensitively, particularly for a highly-active green (new) account. Prior history may be associated. Recent days (and months) have been fraught. There's a contact email in the FAQ. You can request action, though that doesn't seem overly justified here. Guidelines are also worth aa review. Discussing voting is strongly discouraged. Emotion runs high on political threads. It's useful to carefully consider what you write, how much evidence you present, plausible alternatives, and tone.

dredmorbius 6y ago

Or perhaps the indictments are sealed.

skynet-9000 6y ago
That seems reasonable. Of course, it wouldn't be useful as a defense in a civil case. (And, indictments for what? Section 230 protects Parler anyway.)