5 ms·

"Not necessarily" can apply to almost any use of language, but I feel like this kind of thing can commonly be interpreted as non-affiliated. In an analogous cas

"Not necessarily" can apply to almost any use of language, but I feel like this kind of thing can commonly be interpreted as non-affiliated. In an analogous case, if you work for an organization that performs public elections, at least in my country, you can't be affiliated with a party, but your personal business (voting for them) isn't included. Being publicly connected with or being compensated by another entity would seem to me to present an arguable affiliation

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> Being publicly connected with or being compensated by another entity would seem to me to present an arguable affiliation It looks like it's a legitimate legal issue [1][2]. TL; DR It may make sense to explicitly clarify when you're using the term 'affiliate' as it is defined in 17 CFR § 230.601 / Rule 144 [3] versus "affiliate, including but not limited to []," or whatever. [1] https://www.sackrosendin.com/blog/2017/03/landlord-loses-over-definition-of-affiliates/ https://www.sackrosendin.com/blog/2017/03/landlord-loses-ove... [2] https://casetext.com/case/iqbal-v-ziadeh-2 https://casetext.com/case/iqbal-v-ziadeh-2 [3] https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/index.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=e78e8fda5d9bc78ce2bb85600b83350c&term_occur=999&term_src=Title:17:Chapter:II:Part:230:230.144 https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/index.php?width=840&...