6 ms·

Or maybe the reason is that it's not interesting. "Meritless lawsuit against huge company fails, status quo remains the same" stories play out every day. I'm

by rdw 5y ago

Or maybe the reason is that it's not interesting. "Meritless lawsuit against huge company fails, status quo remains the same" stories play out every day. I'm sure it was a big deal for the participants, as most trials are, but, for anyone outside, its resolution is super boring.

nsxwolf 5y ago
Why did they cover it at the beginning then?
dntrkv 5y ago
The problem is the one-sided coverage. There was coverage of the lawsuit filed against FB & Co. They got the bad press. Then once the lawsuit was ruled in their favor, there was no coverage. Whereas, if they lost, you bet there would be coverage.
- taneq 5y ago
  This happens all the time at all scales. "Pop culture figure accused of rape by fan!!" -> front page headlines. "Pop culture figure acquitted" -> not news.
  - Robotbeat 5y ago
    Imagine how utterly infuriating that would be if you were the one accused.
    - modeless 5y ago
      Also imagine what it means about the beliefs you have formed over the years based on what you've read in the news.
      - oezi 5y ago
        You make it sound it is the news media's fault, when it is just a symptom of the public's attention and interest.
        modeless 5y ago
        No, I agree with you. As I said downthread, it's not a vast conspiracy, it's just incentives at work. But it's still a big problem that people should be aware of and care about and try to fix.
        concordDance 5y ago
        Yes, misleading bullshit stories get more clicks, but selling misleading things is unethical, even if it does get more sales. You can't blame the public for buying something if they are being mislead about it.
        oezi 5y ago
        But most of the time the media is not misleading. They are just reporting. They take the information they get and the repeat it. Most journalists wouldn't have the time nor energy to do anything but repeat the first layer of facts as they perceive it.
        concordDance 5y ago
        "But most of the time the media is not misleading" This I disagree with, almost every story I have had in-depth knowledge of has been very misleading. This is partially laziness, but mostly due to wanting to present a coherent and engaging narrative.
        throw10920 5y ago
        It is the news media's fault. They have complete control over what they decide to publish (or not), and how. The media chooses to post misleading information for clicks/money. "But someone will pay for it" is never an excuse to do something wrong.
slownews45 5y ago
I guess my question - given this lawsuit is so "boring" why do places like forbes go big into covering it early (facebook evil) but then when it is exposed as a sham, don't cover that outcome. https://news.bloomberglaw.com/ip-law/ex-facebook-vr-founder-cant-avoid-technology-theft-lawsuit https://news.bloomberglaw.com/ip-law/ex-facebook-vr-founder-... https://www.forbes.com/sites/joeparlock/2020/06/16/lawsuit-against-oculus-founder-palmer-luckey-reinstated-a-year-after-it-was-tossed-out/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/joeparlock/2020/06/16/lawsuit-a... They literally have tech journalists in courtroom for the outcome. But if it's not anti-facebook no coverage. It is a bit weird.
- Nullabillity 5y ago
  > why do places like forbes go big into covering it early Forbes "sites" are just glorified blogs. They reflect Forbes to the same extent that some random Blogger blog reflects Google/Alphabet. > They literally have tech journalists in courtroom for the outcome. But if it's not anti-facebook no coverage. Facebook losing would be an interesting result that may carry repercussions. Facebook winning is.. business as usual. > It is a bit weird. Meh, personally this is the first time I've heard of this debacle at all, and neither of the sources you mentioned are particularly prominent either. And even then, those articles were over a year ago. Priorities and interests change over time.
  - dntrkv 5y ago
    This isn't a one-off occurrence. This happens all the time. It's so frustrating seeing people, especially here on HN, get their pitchforks out over some accusations that reaffirm their views of an entity. Then when those accusations prove to be bullshit, crickets.
    - gopher_space 5y ago
      This isn't the denouement it's a Monday.
    - WalterGR 5y ago
      Then when those accusations prove to be bullshit, crickets. In my experience, at the conclusion of a story, people never link to their previous comments that turn out to be incorrect or off-base, offering a mea culpa. I wonder if you’re seeing is that sites have audiences that aren’t split 50/50 on potentially controversial subjects?
jcranmer 5y ago
In support of this comment, compare the dockets on courtlistener in this case (https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4181898/total-recall-technologies-v-palmer-luckey/ https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4181898/total-recall-te...) versus, say, Epic v Apple (https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/17442392/epic-games-inc-v-apple-inc/ https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/17442392/epic-games-inc...) or Google v Uber (https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4609586/waymo-llc-v-uber-technologies-inc/ https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4609586/waymo-llc-v-ube...). What jumps out at me is how little is available via RECAP on this case. The amended complaints, for example, aren't available--and that's literally the most important of the lawsuit! In the more interesting cases, far more of the docket is available, and often even some of the uninteresting minutiae of the docket (e.g., applications for pro hac vice) are sometimes available, presumably because someone unfamiliar with how the courts work wonders why this isn't available, buys it themself only to discover that it actually was uninteresting.
modeless 5y ago
If reporters were in the courtroom to cover it, that means they thought that it would have been interesting, but only if Luckey had lost. This is fine if you see news as only entertainment. But if you expect news to be informative, then this kind of publication bias is presenting to you a warped version of the world and pretending that it's the truth. See also how everyone believes crime is getting worse due to increasing news coverage, when the statistics say crime is decreasing.

by rdw 5y ago

nsxwolf 5y ago

Why did they cover it at the beginning then?

dntrkv 5y ago

The problem is the one-sided coverage. There was coverage of the lawsuit filed against FB & Co. They got the bad press. Then once the lawsuit was ruled in their favor, there was no coverage. Whereas, if they lost, you bet there would be coverage.

taneq 5y ago
This happens all the time at all scales. "Pop culture figure accused of rape by fan!!" -> front page headlines. "Pop culture figure acquitted" -> not news.
- Robotbeat 5y ago
  Imagine how utterly infuriating that would be if you were the one accused.
  - modeless 5y ago
    Also imagine what it means about the beliefs you have formed over the years based on what you've read in the news.
    - oezi 5y ago
      You make it sound it is the news media's fault, when it is just a symptom of the public's attention and interest.
      - modeless 5y ago
        No, I agree with you. As I said downthread, it's not a vast conspiracy, it's just incentives at work. But it's still a big problem that people should be aware of and care about and try to fix.
      - concordDance 5y ago
        Yes, misleading bullshit stories get more clicks, but selling misleading things is unethical, even if it does get more sales. You can't blame the public for buying something if they are being mislead about it.
        oezi 5y ago
        But most of the time the media is not misleading. They are just reporting. They take the information they get and the repeat it. Most journalists wouldn't have the time nor energy to do anything but repeat the first layer of facts as they perceive it.
        concordDance 5y ago
        "But most of the time the media is not misleading" This I disagree with, almost every story I have had in-depth knowledge of has been very misleading. This is partially laziness, but mostly due to wanting to present a coherent and engaging narrative.
      - throw10920 5y ago
        It is the news media's fault. They have complete control over what they decide to publish (or not), and how. The media chooses to post misleading information for clicks/money. "But someone will pay for it" is never an excuse to do something wrong.

slownews45 5y ago

I guess my question - given this lawsuit is so "boring" why do places like forbes go big into covering it early (facebook evil) but then when it is exposed as a sham, don't cover that outcome. https://news.bloomberglaw.com/ip-law/ex-facebook-vr-founder-cant-avoid-technology-theft-lawsuit https://news.bloomberglaw.com/ip-law/ex-facebook-vr-founder-... https://www.forbes.com/sites/joeparlock/2020/06/16/lawsuit-against-oculus-founder-palmer-luckey-reinstated-a-year-after-it-was-tossed-out/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/joeparlock/2020/06/16/lawsuit-a... They literally have tech journalists in courtroom for the outcome. But if it's not anti-facebook no coverage. It is a bit weird.

Nullabillity 5y ago
> why do places like forbes go big into covering it early Forbes "sites" are just glorified blogs. They reflect Forbes to the same extent that some random Blogger blog reflects Google/Alphabet. > They literally have tech journalists in courtroom for the outcome. But if it's not anti-facebook no coverage. Facebook losing would be an interesting result that may carry repercussions. Facebook winning is.. business as usual. > It is a bit weird. Meh, personally this is the first time I've heard of this debacle at all, and neither of the sources you mentioned are particularly prominent either. And even then, those articles were over a year ago. Priorities and interests change over time.
- dntrkv 5y ago
  This isn't a one-off occurrence. This happens all the time. It's so frustrating seeing people, especially here on HN, get their pitchforks out over some accusations that reaffirm their views of an entity. Then when those accusations prove to be bullshit, crickets.
  - gopher_space 5y ago
    This isn't the denouement it's a Monday.
  - WalterGR 5y ago
    Then when those accusations prove to be bullshit, crickets. In my experience, at the conclusion of a story, people never link to their previous comments that turn out to be incorrect or off-base, offering a mea culpa. I wonder if you’re seeing is that sites have audiences that aren’t split 50/50 on potentially controversial subjects?

jcranmer 5y ago

In support of this comment, compare the dockets on courtlistener in this case (https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4181898/total-recall-technologies-v-palmer-luckey/ https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4181898/total-recall-te...) versus, say, Epic v Apple (https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/17442392/epic-games-inc-v-apple-inc/ https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/17442392/epic-games-inc...) or Google v Uber (https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4609586/waymo-llc-v-uber-technologies-inc/ https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4609586/waymo-llc-v-ube...). What jumps out at me is how little is available via RECAP on this case. The amended complaints, for example, aren't available--and that's literally the most important of the lawsuit! In the more interesting cases, far more of the docket is available, and often even some of the uninteresting minutiae of the docket (e.g., applications for pro hac vice) are sometimes available, presumably because someone unfamiliar with how the courts work wonders why this isn't available, buys it themself only to discover that it actually was uninteresting.

modeless 5y ago

If reporters were in the courtroom to cover it, that means they thought that it would have been interesting, but only if Luckey had lost. This is fine if you see news as only entertainment. But if you expect news to be informative, then this kind of publication bias is presenting to you a warped version of the world and pretending that it's the truth. See also how everyone believes crime is getting worse due to increasing news coverage, when the statistics say crime is decreasing.