4 ms·

>an argument for what rule the law should use >Is/ought dichotomy. For some reason, you've started talking about what the law hypothetically should be and how

>an argument for what rule the law should use >Is/ought dichotomy. For some reason, you've started talking about what the law hypothetically should be and how court cases should be handled. I wish we had a perfect court system, too. But can we shift back to reality? >In what way is it not analogous? The first hint is that it's purposefully formulated to come across as absurd (crypto as an appeal to emotion? really?). It's unnecessarily exaggerated and lacks any context. This Automattic stuff has months of history that will be considered. It fails to map just about anything to the digital equivalent, represented in the lawsuit. Analogies typically suck anyways, so why don't we just discuss what's actually happening? Some companies were obligated to implement manual security controls during the period where Automattic disabled their automated ones. In some cases they had to conduct additional (unscheduled, previously unnecessary) security assessments solely due to the actions of Automattic during their fued with another company about trademarks. Companies had to take time to assess if, how, and when they would move their websites. All of this costs money. If you are an unrelated third-party caught in the crossfire of a frivolous dispute between two companies, seeking reimbursement for that money is reasonable.

AnthonyMouse 2y ago
> For some reason, you've started talking about what the law hypothetically should be and how court cases should be handled. I wish we had a perfect court system, too. But can we shift back to reality? All of these discussions are always about what should happen, because it hasn't happened yet, which means people can still affect the outcome, e.g. by changing the law or convincing a judge to do something different. What would be the point of talking about something if there is nothing anybody can do about it? > The first hint is that it's purposefully formulated to come across as absurd (crypto as an appeal to emotion? really?). This is a thing that commonly happens in the actually analogous situation, i.e. someone who breaks into your servers installs crypto miners on them if they get in. And that was your objection? The point of that example was to provide something that could incur real measurable costs if it actually happened, i.e. giving the other side the benefit of the doubt that a genuine harm is hypothetically possible. The issue is that even assuming that, it's still purely speculative that it would have actually happened. Moreover, you don't seem to like hypotheticals, but the hypothetical is the basis of the claim. "We had to spend money on this mitigation or otherwise hypothetical bad things could have happened." If they spent money in order to prevent nothing then it was wasted money and they were the ones who decided to waste it. > Analogies typically suck anyways, so why don't we just discuss what's actually happening? Analogies are fairly important because the law operates on the basis of analogies, and in particular, cases like this can set precedents that will be used in analogous cases. Which means we might want to consider what happens if the defendant is a kid instead of a large business and whether you really want to level that amount of damages on them. > All of this costs money. All of everything costs money. If you're using some Google service as an important part of your business and then they discontinue it as is their custom, it could cause you a lot of trouble. Does that mean you should be able to sue them when they do that? People are allowed to be petulant and your main recourse is to stop doing business with them. You can also get companies to promise in writing not to be petulant, but in general getting them to guarantee that requires paying them a buttload of money and people are often more inclined to risk the consequences than buy the insurance.

AnthonyMouse 2y ago

> For some reason, you've started talking about what the law hypothetically should be and how court cases should be handled. I wish we had a perfect court system, too. But can we shift back to reality? All of these discussions are always about what should happen, because it hasn't happened yet, which means people can still affect the outcome, e.g. by changing the law or convincing a judge to do something different. What would be the point of talking about something if there is nothing anybody can do about it? > The first hint is that it's purposefully formulated to come across as absurd (crypto as an appeal to emotion? really?). This is a thing that commonly happens in the actually analogous situation, i.e. someone who breaks into your servers installs crypto miners on them if they get in. And that was your objection? The point of that example was to provide something that could incur real measurable costs if it actually happened, i.e. giving the other side the benefit of the doubt that a genuine harm is hypothetically possible. The issue is that even assuming that, it's still purely speculative that it would have actually happened. Moreover, you don't seem to like hypotheticals, but the hypothetical is the basis of the claim. "We had to spend money on this mitigation or otherwise hypothetical bad things could have happened." If they spent money in order to prevent nothing then it was wasted money and they were the ones who decided to waste it. > Analogies typically suck anyways, so why don't we just discuss what's actually happening? Analogies are fairly important because the law operates on the basis of analogies, and in particular, cases like this can set precedents that will be used in analogous cases. Which means we might want to consider what happens if the defendant is a kid instead of a large business and whether you really want to level that amount of damages on them. > All of this costs money. All of everything costs money. If you're using some Google service as an important part of your business and then they discontinue it as is their custom, it could cause you a lot of trouble. Does that mean you should be able to sue them when they do that? People are allowed to be petulant and your main recourse is to stop doing business with them. You can also get companies to promise in writing not to be petulant, but in general getting them to guarantee that requires paying them a buttload of money and people are often more inclined to risk the consequences than buy the insurance.