otterley

40 ms·

961.
by otterley 8mo ago
Whom are you quoting here? Looks a lot like LLM slop. I’m not sure you got the law right. “Abetting” does not mean encouragement. And the code itself does not have “(encourages)” in parentheses in it. The text of the code is right here: ht
962.
by otterley 8mo ago
“May” is a load bearing word here.
963.
by otterley 8mo ago
That won’t cut it in court.
964.
by otterley 8mo ago
It is not the same in the U.S. (And, to be honest, I'm quite doubtful this is true in Canada, though I could be persuaded through legal citations that it is.)
965.
by otterley 8mo ago
To be more accurate, defamation is civil tort law, circumscribed by the First Amendment. (Defamation as a cause of action is quite old, reaching back to our English common law roots, and goes back further in history, I believe.)
966.
by otterley 8mo ago
If that were true, news organizations wouldn't be as careful as they are to preface the word "alleged" before the behavior -- before or after a trial. I don't think you'll find any reputable commercial newsgatheri
967.
by otterley 8mo ago
Right now, any damages are completely speculative at this point. I would suspect in this case, the damages are minimal, and taken in the broader context, the good outweighs the harm. Do you have evidence to the contrary?
968.
by otterley 8mo ago
I'm curious as to how you would prove that it would be impossible for any resource accessible under a given DNS domain to ever cause harm to anyone else.
969.
by otterley 8mo ago
> "When Google marks a site as "unsafe" or "dangerous" in Chrome or search results, it is a factual finding based on automated detection of specific, technical security threats, rather than a subjective opinion
970.
by otterley 8mo ago
Negligence is an element of the tort of defamation.
971.
by otterley 8mo ago
> The registrar should ignore reports of abuse, especially if coming from an authoritative source with vast resources that's been collecting reports on its own? I'm not saying they should "ignore" reports of abuse but
972.
by otterley 8mo ago
> Google saying something is unsafe in the web search or browser would not be considered an opinion because of their position of authority. Everything the Supreme Court rules is an "opinion." And they're the ultimate arbit
973.
by otterley 8mo ago
> It is perfectly legal to say, for example, "Kyle Rittenhouse is a murderer" despite him being acquitted. That's ... not quite true. I wouldn't go that far.
974.
by otterley 8mo ago
Only if it’s intentional (or maybe grossly negligent).
975.
by otterley 8mo ago
There is a potentially different cause of action, tortious interference with business relationships. It does require that the defendant intended to interfere in a way that would cause harm to the plaintiff, though. Proving Google intended s
976.
by otterley 8mo ago
There’s nothing wrong with your dislike of Google. No matter how much you dislike them, though, the word “libel” has a meaning that should be respected. To opine that a site is unsafe is simply not libelous.
977.
by otterley 8mo ago
I agree that it’s not specific, but I disagree that it should be blindly ignored. It’s not like they have no reason whatsoever for their opinion.
978.
by otterley 8mo ago
> Claiming bad/malicious/etc site is 100% libel. No it isn't. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/defamation Please, use words correctly.
979.
by otterley 8mo ago
One is disprovable, the other is not.
980.
by otterley 8mo ago
> If the opinion is meant to be just another opinion, then it shouldn't cause any blacklisting of any sorts anywhere. I agree with this! The registrar should not have triggered a suspension because of this. They're not obligate
981.
by otterley 8mo ago
(IAAL but this is not legal advice.) It’s not libel. Defamation requires a false statement of fact. Marking a website as “unsafe” is an opinion.
982.
by otterley 8mo ago
(IAAL but this is not legal advice.) It’s not libel. Defamation requires a false statement of fact . Marking a website as “unsafe” is an opinion .
983.
by otterley 8mo ago
That’s my question. I’ve launched many fresh websites that have not been marked as unsafe by Google. If they were habitually doing this, there would be far more reports of it. I suspect there is something the author is not telling us.
984.
by otterley 8mo ago
It’s not libel. Defamation requires a false statement of fact. Claiming a website is “unsafe” is an opinion. (IAAL, but this is not legal advice. Consult a licensed attorney for legal advice.)
985.
by otterley 8mo ago
Google’s allowed to have an opinion. But that doesn’t mean that the registrar should be suspending the domain immediately in response. These two mechanisms should be decoupled.
986.
by otterley 8mo ago
If they’re built anything like AWS’s servers, their cryptographic key chip that’s required for boot will be destroyed the moment it’s removed from the rack it’s in, rendering it useless. They’ll be scrapped.
987.
by otterley 8mo ago
Fry’s would frequently accept returned items, and instead of returning them to the vendor to refurbish them, they would simply re-shrink wrap them and put them back on the shelf with a different colored price sticker. The item could be fine
988.
by otterley 8mo ago
I think it’s the steep adjustment in price more than anything else. Raising prices 3% every year is perceived quite differently than raising it 20-33% once.
989.
by otterley 8mo ago
Why not? How is the risk substantially different than with a different vendor?
990.
by otterley 8mo ago
If you're in the Apple ecosystem, password and passkey management via iCloud is included.

More ›