4 ms·

> Isn't it illegal to make claims about a company / individual without evidence? No, it is not. Opinions are not illegal, and this stuff clearly falls into op

by stale2002 3y ago

> Isn't it illegal to make claims about a company / individual without evidence? No, it is not. Opinions are not illegal, and this stuff clearly falls into opinions. Furthermore, even if his claims were factual claims, the claims would have to be proved to be wrong and it would have to be proved that he acted in malice, and not just ignorance. Also, he isn't being sued for defamation, so this is a completely unrelated side argument in this situation.

kypro 3y ago
Thanks for clarifying, although I guess I'm still unclear why this isn't considered a "factual claim": > 1. Amazon doesn't allow sellers to price their products for less off-Amazon. > 2. If they do, Amazon hides their products. > 3. This keeps prices off-Amazon high, which is bad for consumers. This is being stated as a fact, not an opinion. He isn't saying, "I believe this is bad for consumers", he is claiming that Amazon is doing something that is bad for consumers. I also see the title has now changed to "subpoenaed" which would seem more accurate. I'm happy to assume Amazon is doing this in bad faith. What I wasn't happy to assume was the dubious claims being made in the Twitter thread about how Amazon's policies were bad for the consumer.
- stale2002 3y ago
  > was the dubious claims being made in the Twitter thread about how Amazon's policies were bad for the consumer. This isn't a disproveable factual claim. Something being "bad" is an opinion. It is also a secondary interpretation. Someone being bad at economics is not defamation. Defamation would be more like, if someone claimed that Amazon was, I don't know, stealing money from your Amazon account. Because that's a factual action. Interpreting how amazons actions effect other people is an opinion, not a claim. And once again, Amazon agrees with me, not you, because they aren't suing anyone for defamation.

kypro 3y ago

Thanks for clarifying, although I guess I'm still unclear why this isn't considered a "factual claim": > 1. Amazon doesn't allow sellers to price their products for less off-Amazon. > 2. If they do, Amazon hides their products. > 3. This keeps prices off-Amazon high, which is bad for consumers. This is being stated as a fact, not an opinion. He isn't saying, "I believe this is bad for consumers", he is claiming that Amazon is doing something that is bad for consumers. I also see the title has now changed to "subpoenaed" which would seem more accurate. I'm happy to assume Amazon is doing this in bad faith. What I wasn't happy to assume was the dubious claims being made in the Twitter thread about how Amazon's policies were bad for the consumer.

stale2002 3y ago
> was the dubious claims being made in the Twitter thread about how Amazon's policies were bad for the consumer. This isn't a disproveable factual claim. Something being "bad" is an opinion. It is also a secondary interpretation. Someone being bad at economics is not defamation. Defamation would be more like, if someone claimed that Amazon was, I don't know, stealing money from your Amazon account. Because that's a factual action. Interpreting how amazons actions effect other people is an opinion, not a claim. And once again, Amazon agrees with me, not you, because they aren't suing anyone for defamation.