Class Action Against Zuckerberg For Election Interference

https://populist.press/class-action-...interfference/

On 2/16/2021 1:41 PM, Maskless Sociopath wrote:

Class Action Against Zuckerberg For Election Interference

https://populist.press/class-action-...interfference/




Need specifics to make a judgement. What "facts" were not published?
There was a lot of BS lies that should not be published but if there was
real facts omitted, they may have a case.

Anyone that relies on Facebook for information is a fool anyway.

On Tuesday, February 16, 2021 at 1:42:14 PM UTC-5, Maskless Sociopath wrote:
Class Action Against Zuckerberg For Election Interference

https://populist.press/class-action-...interfference/

You know, if you think America's judges are crooked, perhaps you should go someplace
where the judges aren't crooked.

Cindy Hamilton

In alt.home.repair, on Tue, 16 Feb 2021 14:10:03 -0500, Heywood
wrote:

On 2/16/2021 1:41 PM, Maskless Sociopath wrote:

Class Action Against Zuckerberg For Election Interference

https://populist.press/class-action-...interfference/

The way it works is the plaintiff files a suit.
The respondents** can file a motion to dismiss, etc.
The plaintiffs present evidence.
The respondents can express objections to evidence and can file more
motions.
For every motion and objection, the judge rules, and either the case is
dismissed or one side wins. See, how simple it is!

**Many states call them defendants, but other states call them
respondents. That's better because defendant sounds too much like
someone charged criminally, and many/most lawsuits don't relate to
criminal acts at all, many/most are sincere disagreements, many with
some valid arguments on each side.


Need specifics to make a judgement. What "facts" were not published?
There was a lot of BS lies that should not be published but if there was
real facts omitted, they may have a case.

Anyone that relies on Facebook for information is a fool anyway.

That's for sure. It's like depending on your quilting club or
motorcycle club for news.

Meanwhile, NPR reported today: It reminded listeners that Facebook
"paused" a lot of political news (I think that's the word) a few weeks
or months ago and has not resumed them, and maybe a separate story said
they have cut down on political news because of criticism (and IMO or
maybe they said it, to lower their exposure to this or some other
lawsuit. In practice, did't read the link above, which for all I know
is on some crackpot site, but I would expect the most a plaintiff will
get is an order for FB to refrain from some past bad behaviour or to
lose some tax advantage it might currently have as a news source.
Although I dont' even see that since nothing requires news sources to be
unbiased or to report everything there is to report.

However it's bad for FB's reputation to look bad. I think Zuckerberg is
sincere when he says it's proper to post just about everything. He
sounds like a fool, but I haven't discussed it with him in detail. There
are a lot of people who think that, especially those who are aware of
where the alternative leads, as in many other countries.

Lawsuits for slander seem much more likely to succeed, where falsehoods
are repeated about individuals. Is there any of that alleged in the
URL above.


I dislike the format of FB tremendously and I've told the people that on
the third list below a few times.. I only read it because there are 2
and occasionally a third group there that has no similar group anywhere
else. One is medical and soon won't be relevant to me anymore. Another
is travel. And a third is philosophical with a near iron-clad rule
against anything political. They've forced me to remove parts of posts
that were included not for anything political but they still don't like
it because it was related to something political. You could probably
mention Lincoln, but if you said he was a member of the Republican
party, they'd delete your post or make you edit out that part.

On Tue, 16 Feb 2021 16:41:22 -0500, micky posted for all of us to digest...

The way it works is the plaintiff files a suit.
The respondents** can file a motion to dismiss, etc.
The plaintiffs present evidence.
The respondents can express objections to evidence and can file more
motions.
For every motion and objection, the judge rules, and either the case is
dismissed or one side wins. See, how simple it is!


You forgot the portion where the trial enters the mix. Then the judgment (if
any) then the appeal, then the appeal to a higher court, then the next appeal
on up ad nauseam. Could be gag orders, etc. Both sides have lots of bux which
will eventually pay for in one way or another.

--
Tekkie