3 ms·
Nope. The text was redacted by the other party. The DOJ and Amazon are free to provide that additional context (since they did the redacting) if it would help
by labcomputer 4y ago
Nope. The text was redacted by the other party.
The DOJ and Amazon are free to provide that additional context (since they did the redacting) if it would help them. The fact that they don’t speaks volumes.
- staticman2 4y agoIt doesn't matter who redacted it. The tweet claims "Amazon admits no basis for damages..." The only possible source for this is a court filing by Amazon's attorney where Amazon admits there is no basis for damages. The tweet appears to be a redacted filing by the Twitter user's attorney. It doesn't support the headline at all. If you think it does, someone has sold you something.
- dang 4y agoI've added a question mark to the title. If someone can suggest a better* title, we can change it again. I'm pretty lost here. * i.e. more accurate and neutral, preferably using representative language from the original source