6 ms·

Basically rich, powerful people feel empowered to use the legal system as a cudgel. Our new president has shown this approach works- as he has extracted multi m

Basically rich, powerful people feel empowered to use the legal system as a cudgel. Our new president has shown this approach works- as he has extracted multi million dollar settlements from Facebook and abc for hurting his feelings. I’ve had this done to me by a spiteful neighbor. It’s a terrible place to be, as defending yourself - even against a totally baseless lawsuit - can easily bankrupt an individual. Businesses find its cheaper to pay off than fight, as they are only focused on the bottom line (see for example the success of patent trolls, until brave individuals like Lee Cheng fought back, regardless of the cost)

dralley 2y ago
It's a bit more subtle than that. They're innovating on the frontiers of the science of bribery. If you get someone to pay you $25 million to "settle a civil lawsuit" that you filed against them, it's not a bribe, it's a settlement. It's effectively legally indemnified no matter how ridiculous the lawsuit is (and given that it's a collaborative effort of sorts, the reasonableness of the lawsuit is irrelevant).
- ipython 2y ago
  Oh, absolutely. And they’ve managed to create multiple diverse income streams as well- so if this little racket is shut down, well we have a shitcoin for sale, or some branded sneakers, how about a bible or watch? Heck why not just have a publicly traded company with your name on it and no business fundamentals as another vehicle for grift. Any fraction of one of those schemes would have doomed a previous administration. Now we’ve become numb. It’s disappointing.
  - SlightlyLeftPad 2y ago
    So boycotting bad but racketeering/extortion good?
    - LaSombra 2y ago
      That seems to be the current narrative.
- jamestimmins 2y ago
  Oof. This is incredibly bleak, but also a good insight. Is the "settlement == bribe" comparison yours or did you read it somewhere?
  - pyth0 2y ago
    Meta settled a lawsuit with president Trump for $25 million. He was suing them for violating his first amendment for banning his account (along with many other platforms) in the wake of January 6th 2021. This was a completely baseless case which he would have lost had it actually been fought, so many have interpreted this decision to settle as a form of bribe payment. This is especially suspicsious since Zuckerberg's hard pivot towards trying to get in the good graces of the new adminitration.
    - cadamsdotcom 2y ago
      It seems there’s an economic argument against paying a bribe because paying one opens the door to more. But such long term thinking conflicts with quarterly targets.
      - Timon3 2y ago
        I'd agree if this bribe was made to anyone else, but the reasoning here is a bit different: everyone is afraid of Trump making an example of them. Remember that the new president has stated many times over the last years that he wants to throw Zuckerberg in jail, that he wants to ban media and social networks that are "unfair" to him. This wasn't a bribe to settle a lawsuit, it was a bribe to get on the good side of an authoritarian who campaigned on being a tyrant.
  - ipython 2y ago
    It is a bit more subtle, as a better analogy is “protection racket” ala the Mob. Paramount for example is implying that they may settle the lawsuit Trump filed against cbs as this would help their chances to approve a proposed merger with Skydance.
mandeepj 2y ago
> Our new president has shown this approach works- as he has extracted multi million dollar settlements from Facebook and abc for hurting his feelings. Meta chief is simping over the new president, so to get into his good books they settled as well as announced those new policies.
Justsignedup 2y ago
Funny story, my lady's landlord has been doing some blatantly illegal stuff, and then taking her to court. Instead she went on the offensive and suddenly the landlord is extremely willing to fix all the problems and such. Being on the offensive is far better than on the defensive legally it seems.
- sshine 2y ago
  It’s a human thing: Treat people with intimidation, and they’ll be nice to you out of fear. Treat people nicely, and they’ll walk over you. (Treat people with cautious respect, and they don’t know where to put you in the hierarchy. Or something like that.)
phendrenad2 2y ago
Agreed, this is fishing by Elon to see if advertisers coordinated their boycott, which would arguably be illegal.
- acdha 2y ago
  Coordination isn’t illegal on its own: only when it distorts the market. If they found that advertisers were boycotting X until ad rates lowered or because Facebook was offering rewards, that’d be one thing but there’s no law (yet) requiring them to spend money because an oligarch needs to pay off his loans. https://www.ftc.gov/advice-guidance/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/dealings-competitors/group-boycotts https://www.ftc.gov/advice-guidance/competition-guidance/gui...

dralley 2y ago

It's a bit more subtle than that. They're innovating on the frontiers of the science of bribery. If you get someone to pay you $25 million to "settle a civil lawsuit" that you filed against them, it's not a bribe, it's a settlement. It's effectively legally indemnified no matter how ridiculous the lawsuit is (and given that it's a collaborative effort of sorts, the reasonableness of the lawsuit is irrelevant).

ipython 2y ago
Oh, absolutely. And they’ve managed to create multiple diverse income streams as well- so if this little racket is shut down, well we have a shitcoin for sale, or some branded sneakers, how about a bible or watch? Heck why not just have a publicly traded company with your name on it and no business fundamentals as another vehicle for grift. Any fraction of one of those schemes would have doomed a previous administration. Now we’ve become numb. It’s disappointing.
- SlightlyLeftPad 2y ago
  So boycotting bad but racketeering/extortion good?
  - LaSombra 2y ago
    That seems to be the current narrative.
jamestimmins 2y ago
Oof. This is incredibly bleak, but also a good insight. Is the "settlement == bribe" comparison yours or did you read it somewhere?
- pyth0 2y ago
  Meta settled a lawsuit with president Trump for $25 million. He was suing them for violating his first amendment for banning his account (along with many other platforms) in the wake of January 6th 2021. This was a completely baseless case which he would have lost had it actually been fought, so many have interpreted this decision to settle as a form of bribe payment. This is especially suspicsious since Zuckerberg's hard pivot towards trying to get in the good graces of the new adminitration.
  - cadamsdotcom 2y ago
    It seems there’s an economic argument against paying a bribe because paying one opens the door to more. But such long term thinking conflicts with quarterly targets.
    - Timon3 2y ago
      I'd agree if this bribe was made to anyone else, but the reasoning here is a bit different: everyone is afraid of Trump making an example of them. Remember that the new president has stated many times over the last years that he wants to throw Zuckerberg in jail, that he wants to ban media and social networks that are "unfair" to him. This wasn't a bribe to settle a lawsuit, it was a bribe to get on the good side of an authoritarian who campaigned on being a tyrant.
- ipython 2y ago
  It is a bit more subtle, as a better analogy is “protection racket” ala the Mob. Paramount for example is implying that they may settle the lawsuit Trump filed against cbs as this would help their chances to approve a proposed merger with Skydance.

mandeepj 2y ago

> Our new president has shown this approach works- as he has extracted multi million dollar settlements from Facebook and abc for hurting his feelings. Meta chief is simping over the new president, so to get into his good books they settled as well as announced those new policies.

Justsignedup 2y ago

Funny story, my lady's landlord has been doing some blatantly illegal stuff, and then taking her to court. Instead she went on the offensive and suddenly the landlord is extremely willing to fix all the problems and such. Being on the offensive is far better than on the defensive legally it seems.

sshine 2y ago
It’s a human thing: Treat people with intimidation, and they’ll be nice to you out of fear. Treat people nicely, and they’ll walk over you. (Treat people with cautious respect, and they don’t know where to put you in the hierarchy. Or something like that.)

phendrenad2 2y ago

Agreed, this is fishing by Elon to see if advertisers coordinated their boycott, which would arguably be illegal.

acdha 2y ago
Coordination isn’t illegal on its own: only when it distorts the market. If they found that advertisers were boycotting X until ad rates lowered or because Facebook was offering rewards, that’d be one thing but there’s no law (yet) requiring them to spend money because an oligarch needs to pay off his loans. https://www.ftc.gov/advice-guidance/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/dealings-competitors/group-boycotts https://www.ftc.gov/advice-guidance/competition-guidance/gui...