3 ms·

Good luck to Apple to prove damages. Could you actually outline for us what comments of his you're saying are libel, and explain why they're libel? Rather than

by loceng 2y ago

Good luck to Apple to prove damages. Could you actually outline for us what comments of his you're saying are libel, and explain why they're libel? Rather than just seemingly piling on the ad hominem in this thread.

mullingitover 2y ago
His shrill statements implying that Apple will be piping all your private data to OpenAI are the exact opposite of what Apple demo'd. It's like they were designed to destroy consumer confidence in Apple's privacy protections across their entire product line, protections which Apple obviously designed at great expense and effort and are core to their business strategy. This is someone with 187 million twitter followers who knew his statements would reach headlines to influence far beyond even the massive following. I don't think it would be hard to prove a billion dollars or more in damages for the kind of legal team Apple could easily assemble.
- loceng 2y ago
  Can you quote him directly please? You're saying implying but it's more likely you're placing that assumption or interpretation on it. Was it actually concerns he put forward of how easy it would actually be for Apple to do so, rather than claiming they will 100% do so? Re: "I don't think it would be hard to prove a billion dollars or more in damages for the kind of legal team Apple could easily assemble." It's practically impossible to prove - in fact his statement and his reach you talk about could perhaps even have driven up their revenue, if we're just going to play armchair expert and put assumptions forward as reality.
- stale2002 2y ago
  Thats not how libel works. He is allowed to dislike the fact that Apple is working with OpenAI. And whether or not it is good security practice isn't an objective fact and is instead a matter of opinion. In the USA, free speech protections are very strong and you aren't going to win a lawsuit just because someone doesn't like your product.

by loceng 2y ago

mullingitover 2y ago

His shrill statements implying that Apple will be piping all your private data to OpenAI are the exact opposite of what Apple demo'd. It's like they were designed to destroy consumer confidence in Apple's privacy protections across their entire product line, protections which Apple obviously designed at great expense and effort and are core to their business strategy. This is someone with 187 million twitter followers who knew his statements would reach headlines to influence far beyond even the massive following. I don't think it would be hard to prove a billion dollars or more in damages for the kind of legal team Apple could easily assemble.

loceng 2y ago
Can you quote him directly please? You're saying implying but it's more likely you're placing that assumption or interpretation on it. Was it actually concerns he put forward of how easy it would actually be for Apple to do so, rather than claiming they will 100% do so? Re: "I don't think it would be hard to prove a billion dollars or more in damages for the kind of legal team Apple could easily assemble." It's practically impossible to prove - in fact his statement and his reach you talk about could perhaps even have driven up their revenue, if we're just going to play armchair expert and put assumptions forward as reality.
stale2002 2y ago
Thats not how libel works. He is allowed to dislike the fact that Apple is working with OpenAI. And whether or not it is good security practice isn't an objective fact and is instead a matter of opinion. In the USA, free speech protections are very strong and you aren't going to win a lawsuit just because someone doesn't like your product.