a common point of confusion:
Uncategorized
5
Posts
5
Posters
0
Views
-
a common point of confusion:
A corporation agreeing to settle a lawsuit with money does not mean that the allegations were conclusively proven. It means they hit the “fine fine here’s some money to compensate for your troubles, please shut up” escape button. These concepts may have overlap, but they are not the same.
In particular, a company may agree to settle over something that isn’t really true, because the amount of sensitive internal information they’d have to disclose at the court’s orders to PROVE it’s not true would do more damage than just sighing and forking over the money.
It also might just be true and they know it! But not necessarily.
-
a common point of confusion:
A corporation agreeing to settle a lawsuit with money does not mean that the allegations were conclusively proven. It means they hit the “fine fine here’s some money to compensate for your troubles, please shut up” escape button. These concepts may have overlap, but they are not the same.
In particular, a company may agree to settle over something that isn’t really true, because the amount of sensitive internal information they’d have to disclose at the court’s orders to PROVE it’s not true would do more damage than just sighing and forking over the money.
It also might just be true and they know it! But not necessarily.
@0xabad1dea but most of the time it's true
not necessarily always, but often it just is
-
a common point of confusion:
A corporation agreeing to settle a lawsuit with money does not mean that the allegations were conclusively proven. It means they hit the “fine fine here’s some money to compensate for your troubles, please shut up” escape button. These concepts may have overlap, but they are not the same.
In particular, a company may agree to settle over something that isn’t really true, because the amount of sensitive internal information they’d have to disclose at the court’s orders to PROVE it’s not true would do more damage than just sighing and forking over the money.
It also might just be true and they know it! But not necessarily.
@0xabad1dea
Plus, the money will be single digit amounts to each user, assuming it's not just a discount coupon for future service.The company doesn't fell punished, as it's nothing compared to what they earned off their misdeeds - effectively an operating cost, and they'll continue offending.
The lawyers, though? They're doing great.
-
a common point of confusion:
A corporation agreeing to settle a lawsuit with money does not mean that the allegations were conclusively proven. It means they hit the “fine fine here’s some money to compensate for your troubles, please shut up” escape button. These concepts may have overlap, but they are not the same.
In particular, a company may agree to settle over something that isn’t really true, because the amount of sensitive internal information they’d have to disclose at the court’s orders to PROVE it’s not true would do more damage than just sighing and forking over the money.
It also might just be true and they know it! But not necessarily.
@0xabad1dea In English law at least the phrase "without prejudice" is very important, and many people don't get it. "We are specifically not admitting anything, but we are making you this offer anyway."
-
a common point of confusion:
A corporation agreeing to settle a lawsuit with money does not mean that the allegations were conclusively proven. It means they hit the “fine fine here’s some money to compensate for your troubles, please shut up” escape button. These concepts may have overlap, but they are not the same.
In particular, a company may agree to settle over something that isn’t really true, because the amount of sensitive internal information they’d have to disclose at the court’s orders to PROVE it’s not true would do more damage than just sighing and forking over the money.
It also might just be true and they know it! But not necessarily.
@0xabad1dea So like if Coca-Cola settled with the guy who RE'd their recipe, so they wouldn't have to reveal theirs in court and keep it a secret, despite the RE?
-
undefined oblomov@sociale.network shared this topic
Feed RSS
Gli ultimi otto messaggi ricevuti dalla Federazione
-
@repubblica @politica-la-repubblica-repubblica Massimo Giannini spiega bene questo golpe
-
This post did not contain any content.
-
This post did not contain any content.
-
日本의 TypeScript 컨퍼런스인 TSKaigi 2026이 5月 22日(金)–23日(土)에 東京에서 開催된다고 합니다. 함께 가실 韓國 분 계실까요?
一旦 저랑 @2chanhaeng@hackers.pub 님하고 @kodingwarrior@silicon.moe 님이 같이 가실 것 같습니다.
-
vedete che cosa è emerso? La scorsa settimana vi ho detto che mentre lavoravo all'inchiesta sui corsi #antisemitismo alla #PoliziaItaliana, ho subito 2 attacchi di phishing su #Signal su 2 telefoni diversi con due sistemi operativi diversi.
-
@stefano from what I read today in the Mac-centric press, the move to subscription everywhere is confirmed. You used to pay a premium for a Mac, but the bundled software was of value (iLife/iWork). That would help justify high prices. The overall experience could justify expensive hardware. I may have problems considering the purchase if the value of the bundled software vanishes in the need of various subscriptions.
-
@lysander passa al lato dei SBC!
quelli in cui la ram è limitata e saldata assieme al chip, comunque, per cui credo che non sia drammaticamente coinvolta nella crescita dei prezzi
-
@stefano You’re a lucky guy, Stefano, that could have turned out a lot worse. Thanks a lot for sharing such personal stories, still trying to avoid that in my blog.
You still use a scooter?
