4 ms·
Tldr; the lawyers argued that knowing that the terms of service would change made the subsequent change in the terms of service foreseeable; the judge argued th
by SuperNinKenDo 3y ago
Tldr; the lawyers argued that knowing that the terms of service would change made the subsequent change in the terms of service foreseeable; the judge argued that this amounted to an argument that because change is forseeable, any specific change is forseeable, which indeed seems to be a ridiculous argument.
That said, I couldn't quite make heads or tails of exactly what the precise argument was beyond that, the article doesn't actually do a very good job, or else I didn't do a very good job of reading it.
If someone can explain to me, please do.
- I_Am_Nous 3y agoFrom what I can see X is arguing that because they allowed previously banned hate content back onto the site by changing the terms and conditions, the CCDH reports were done to intentionally harm the company. CCDH has been operating on X since 2019 in basically the same capacity as they do now so X is trying to argue that in 2019 CCDH started its work knowing it would hurt X financially in the future if changes were made to the terms and conditions. Basically it doesn't make sense and is hard to follow because the argument doesn't make sense in the first place. X seems to to trying to say "TECHNICALLY, Your Honor..." and the judge isn't having it.
- rsynnott 3y agoFor obvious reasons, Naughty Ol' Mr Car doesn't want to run this as a _defamation_ lawsuit, so his unfortunate lawyers are really having to grasp at straws to come up with _any_ hook to sue on, even unwinnably. I'd assume that the real attempt here was to placate dear leader and collect some fees, not to win; it's an emotional support lawsuit.