5 ms·

Definitely true and all of his communication - this thread, he’s given some interviews, etc. is very odd for a legal strategy.

flutas 2y ago
Right, this all feels like (and I'm not trying to be rude with this, I'm speaking from experience) a mental break. Or he's got some sort of vendetta that he feels burning everything down is worth it over. Some of his comments from the other day on reddit have already been used in this very lawsuit, you'd think he would know to shut the hell up at this point if it's #2.
- riffic 2y ago
  could even be a little from column A, a little from column B
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- spondylosaurus 2y ago
  I don't even know if it's a vendetta about WP specifically or just the result of his general disposition. About a year ago he had an embarrassing public meltdown after some random Tumblr users talked shit about him because they didn't like his moderation policies. Banning people, then publicly shaming them, then replying to their posts on other social media sites...
  - extraduder_ire 2y ago
    > some random Tumblr users talked shit about him because they didn't like his moderation policies Was that the hammers thing, or something else?
    - duskwuff 2y ago
      That would be the infamous "car covered in hammers", yes. And it was from February this year - time flies (like a hammer).
- zo1 2y ago
  My take is this is 100% someone sticking to a naive worldview because they are smart and logical (and I don't doubt that they are). But the world doesn't work like that. And as much as I hate to admit it, these WPE people are playing the game and just baiting and provoking a response from him. They're like schoolyard bullies that poke and wave hands inches from your face, then cry foul to principal Government when you rightfully retaliate. As much as a smart and "fair" person would think this is a reasonable and logical response, the principal does not think so. They will look at the rules, say "a ha, you broke rule 3(a) and hit someone", and then send you to detention. No amount of if, buts, and logical "reasons" will matter at that point.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
- vundercind 2y ago
  There’s a whole-ass archetype among founder-owners of successful companies who stick with them long-term, that looks like this. It’s not all of them, by any means, but it’s definitely one sort. In ordinary circumstances it manifests as a preference for maintaining control over making moves that might, by some measures, be better (improving business success, or limiting liability, say) and a string of quiet and maybe fishy-seeming but not exactly red-flag dust-ups; when a big enough obstacle (especially to that whole “control” thing) shows up and throwing their weight around can’t make it go away, though, things can get real dicey.
agrocrag 2y ago
It feels and looks very similar to when things weren't going well for SBF. Never really stopped talking to the press, giving interviews, etc.
bagels 2y ago
It's probably not a legal strategy. Everything becomes evidence that your opponent can use. You don't want them to have more of that.

flutas 2y ago

Right, this all feels like (and I'm not trying to be rude with this, I'm speaking from experience) a mental break. Or he's got some sort of vendetta that he feels burning everything down is worth it over. Some of his comments from the other day on reddit have already been used in this very lawsuit, you'd think he would know to shut the hell up at this point if it's #2.

riffic 2y ago
could even be a little from column A, a little from column B
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
spondylosaurus 2y ago
I don't even know if it's a vendetta about WP specifically or just the result of his general disposition. About a year ago he had an embarrassing public meltdown after some random Tumblr users talked shit about him because they didn't like his moderation policies. Banning people, then publicly shaming them, then replying to their posts on other social media sites...
- extraduder_ire 2y ago
  > some random Tumblr users talked shit about him because they didn't like his moderation policies Was that the hammers thing, or something else?
  - duskwuff 2y ago
    That would be the infamous "car covered in hammers", yes. And it was from February this year - time flies (like a hammer).
zo1 2y ago
My take is this is 100% someone sticking to a naive worldview because they are smart and logical (and I don't doubt that they are). But the world doesn't work like that. And as much as I hate to admit it, these WPE people are playing the game and just baiting and provoking a response from him. They're like schoolyard bullies that poke and wave hands inches from your face, then cry foul to principal Government when you rightfully retaliate. As much as a smart and "fair" person would think this is a reasonable and logical response, the principal does not think so. They will look at the rules, say "a ha, you broke rule 3(a) and hit someone", and then send you to detention. No amount of if, buts, and logical "reasons" will matter at that point.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
vundercind 2y ago
There’s a whole-ass archetype among founder-owners of successful companies who stick with them long-term, that looks like this. It’s not all of them, by any means, but it’s definitely one sort. In ordinary circumstances it manifests as a preference for maintaining control over making moves that might, by some measures, be better (improving business success, or limiting liability, say) and a string of quiet and maybe fishy-seeming but not exactly red-flag dust-ups; when a big enough obstacle (especially to that whole “control” thing) shows up and throwing their weight around can’t make it go away, though, things can get real dicey.

agrocrag 2y ago

It feels and looks very similar to when things weren't going well for SBF. Never really stopped talking to the press, giving interviews, etc.

bagels 2y ago

It's probably not a legal strategy. Everything becomes evidence that your opponent can use. You don't want them to have more of that.