111–120 of 135 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Funny that Apple may need to help Google and Samsung gain marketshare in order to keep the most profitable segment of the market while staying out of the monopoly category.
That is pretty much the main reason why Microsoft rescued Apple from insolvency.
We developed a free social media application back in 2016 that cost us about $500,000 to build. We provided multiple safety filters including world filters, neural net pornography detection for profile avatars, etc. The application had a user profile search function. We had about 100,000 downloads in less than a year. I'm sure that 99.9% of user profiles did not contain any sexual material. Certainly less than Twitte…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I distinctly recall cheering on old Newegg when a patent troll accidentally sued them. Newegg said they would be taking the issue to court, and actually prevented the patent troll from backing out of the suit, IIRC.
How could they have accidentally sued someone?
I think the poster meant "accidentally targeted someone who would not only fight back, but also hurt the patent troll", not "accidentally filed a suit".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You neglect that civil trials often result in relevant case law, which benefits society when similar actionable events occur. This is a clear benefit to society which settling cases destroys. Legislation is the start of the law, judicial interpretation is the implementation and will of it. This too applies to civil cases to which the state is a party - if you want to avoid any possibility of creating case law, bindin…
> If you want the power and will of the people to solve and enforce the solution to your civil problem, you owe the people something also. They don't. Hence 'settled out of court'
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It absolutely does that... but the victim(s) sign the settlement, so it seems they are not ready to die on that hill.
Settlements apply to anyone who could be a potential victim and strip them of their rights to sue, unless they opt out (this is insane to me!). So in this case the lawsuit filers settling actually does enforce bad behavior for society at large.
How would you solve the problem that class action suits are trying to solve while fixing the problem that someone else might end up speaking for you without you wanting them to? Note that this feature isn't specific to settlements; it also happens with judgments.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Subdomain to avoid polluting the .gov namespace too much. States could do similar; settlements.ny.gov. I’m tired of the “phishing or real?” game with these things.
Your original comment suggests you are proposing: [class action identifier].settlements.gov Parent is asking why not: settlements.gov/[class action identifier] Using a different page rather than subdomain wouldn’t have any real phishing downsides and would avoid polluting DNS entirely, so seems better.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You neglect that civil trials often result in relevant case law, which benefits society when similar actionable events occur. This is a clear benefit to society which settling cases destroys. Legislation is the start of the law, judicial interpretation is the implementation and will of it. This too applies to civil cases to which the state is a party - if you want to avoid any possibility of creating case law, bindin…
> If you want the power and will of the people to solve and enforce the solution to your civil problem, you owe the people something also. They don't. Hence 'settled out of court'
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Settlements apply to anyone who could be a potential victim and strip them of their rights to sue, unless they opt out (this is insane to me!). So in this case the lawsuit filers settling actually does enforce bad behavior for society at large.
> Settlements apply to anyone who could be a potential victim and strip them of their rights to sue, unless they opt out (this is insane to me!). How would you solve the problem that class action suits are trying to solve while fixing the problem that someone else might end up speaking for you without you wanting them to? Note that this feature isn't specific to settlements; it also happens with judgments.
Company causes significant harm to millions of people, gets shut down or massive fines seems like a better solution than having them send out a token payment vastly smaller than the harm caused. The first is an existential threat, the second just becomes the cost of doing business.
Class action lawsuits sit in a strange middle ground where reputation damage isn’t enough but the government doesn’t care or the penalties are too small.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure, I think it's clear that settlements work from a game theory perspective, in the sense that two rational actors working for their own best interest can accept one. But the larger question is about whether this state of affairs is good for society . As citizens of a democracy, we (theoretically) get to have a say in how courts are run, and if the way the courts are run permits wealthy corporations to buy their wa…
> As citizens of a democracy, we (theoretically) get to have a say in how courts are run That’s not the point of civil cases between 2 private parties. If you want your say, call your congress person and vote for platforms which intend to introduce legislation. (Or whichever process your country uses). Not every proceeding has to be about deciding good vs evil. Things have their place.
That is what the comment is talking about. It says "maybe the rules need re-examining". That is not about a particular civil case. That is proposing exactly what you are saying.
> If you want your say, call your congress person and vote for platforms which intend to introduce legislation.
Or they also can post publicly on a forum where people discuss things. Such as this one. As such raising awareness about the issue by bringing it into the public consciousness, thus making it vastly more likely that the issue will be addressed.
You are acting as if that is not a valid use of this forum. As if private letters to your congress person are the only permissible avenue to discuss issues like this.
We developed a free social media application back in 2016 that cost us about $500,000 to build. We provided multiple safety filters including world filters, neural net pornography detection for profile avatars, etc. The application had a user profile search function. We had about 100,000 downloads in less than a year. I'm sure that 99.9% of user profiles did not contain any sexual material. Certainly less than Twitte…
Where you using the same content rating as Twitter?