41–50 of 123 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In the uk at least truth is not defense againts defamation. Beware if you live there.
My own post here [0] got suddenly multiply downvoted and flagged, even though I wrote it very carefully and double-checked every single statement. Truth defense. [0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41526702
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My own post here [0] got suddenly multiply downvoted and flagged, even though I wrote it very carefully and double-checked every single statement. Truth defense. [0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41526702
[flagged]
Is it not the more likely explanation that some people / a moderator decided a summary makes for boring reading, especially given that you need 500 karma to downvote?
While a favorable ruling for the Data Colada defendants seemed incredibly likely in the end (and of course being dismissed pre-trial before discovery is a good thing). But it still took over a year, and consisted of several pre-trial hearings with multiple back and forths between them. If I ctrl-f https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mad.259... I see Pyle (their lawyer) listed 11 times. All the motion…
Fortunately, they were able to raise quite a bit of money (>$300K) on GoFundMe: https://www.gofundme.com/f/uhbka-support-data-coladas-legal-...
[tl;dr] US District Court dismisses Francesca Gino's controversial $25m defamation lawsuit against Harvard Business School and DataColada scientist-bloggers (Simonsohn, Nelson, and Simmons). The judge allowed Gino's breach of contract claim against Harvard to continue. DataColada's legal defense (so far) was paid for by their own universities; there is also a $378K private GoFundMe organized by Simine Vazire [ https:…
https://www.gofundme.com/f/uhbka-support-data-coladas-legal-...
The irony is that Francesca Gino and Dan Ariely are famous for their pop-sci/TED talks studying dishonesty. Turns out they were dishonest themselves. https://www.npr.org/2023/07/27/1190568472/dan-ariely-frances...
I'm at the point where if I see it in a TED talk I'm assuming it's a bullshit grifter
[tl;dr] US District Court dismisses Francesca Gino's controversial $25m defamation lawsuit against Harvard Business School and DataColada scientist-bloggers (Simonsohn, Nelson, and Simmons). The judge allowed Gino's breach of contract claim against Harvard to continue. DataColada's legal defense (so far) was paid for by their own universities; there is also a $378K private GoFundMe organized by Simine Vazire [ https:…
Do you have a source for their universities paying? Their fundraising page states that "their employers have so far only agreed to pay part of the legal fees". https://www.gofundme.com/f/uhbka-support-data-coladas-legal-...
"Because our universities have generously funded our defense up to this point, we have not (yet) had to use any of the GoFundMe money... we are reaching out to you to explain how we intend to use it. Obviously if we need the money for our defense, we will use it for our defense. Our plan is to donate any money we do not use to The Scientific Integrity Fund, an organization that defends scientists who find themselves in a predicament that is very similar to ours. "
“… the court has ruled that evidence-backed conclusions regarding fabricated data cannot constitute defamation—which is probably a very good thing for science.” “Probably good for science”? That is science!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It also cited a precedent I didn't know existed for the courts: > The court cites precedent to note that “[s]cientific controversies must be settled by the methods of science rather than by the methods of litigation” I wonder if this a specific case or just a general precedent? Is general precedent a thing?
I saw that quote in the article but cannot find it in the ruling itself: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mad.259... It seems to be a quote from a London court ruling in 2010: https://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c1895
> Instead, this is a case where the trial of ideas plays out in the pages of peer
> reviewed journals, and the scientific public sits as the jury.” (cleaned up)); Underwager v. Salter,
> 22 F.3d 730, 736 (7th Cir. 1994) (affirming summary judgment against defamation claims and
> stating that “[s]cientific controversies must be settled by the methods of science rather than by
> the methods of litigation”).
Until such time as that legal system is fixed, the scientific community should take countermeasures against the law. I'm calling for some kind of universal default clause[1]. If you sue scientific accusers for defamation, you're not doing science anymore, so you should be automatically fired from or kicked out of any scientific institution you're a member of. You could obviously restrain this to only unproven allegations - i.e. get a scientific board to call the allegations bullshit first and then you can bring it to a court. But the pathway of allegations of fraud becoming "put up $100k in legal fees or shut up" is not acceptable in a free society.
[0] Related note: do you remember when Donald Trump was saying he wanted to "open up our libel laws" to make it EASIER to pull this shit!?
[1] "Universal default" is a concept in banking that treats defaulting on any loan the same as defaulting on the specific loan mentioned in the contract.