a common point of confusion:
Uncategorized
5
Posts
5
Posters
23
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 on
Feed RSS
Gli ultimi otto messaggi ricevuti dalla Federazione
-
Il social network Bluesky si prepara a grandi cambiamenti con l'annuncio di oggi di aver raccolto 100 milioni di dollari in un round di finanziamento di Serie B. Il round, guidato da Bain Capital Crypto, si è concluso nell'aprile del 2025 ma non era stato reso pubblico fino ad ora. Tra gli altri partecipanti al round figurano gli investitori già presenti Alumni Ventures e True Ventures, oltre ad Anthos Capital, Bloomberg Beta e Knight Foundation. Questo round segue il round di Serie A da 15 milioni di dollari di Bluesky , guidato da Blockchain Capital e concluso nel 2024, e il round di seed da 8 milioni di dollari ricevuto da Neo e altri angel investor l'anno precedente. Bluesky non ha reso nota la sua valutazione aggiornata.
-
Trump a Israele: basta colpire gli impianti energetici. Borse a picco. (Il Messaggero)
-
-
Febbraio 2026: il quinto più caldo di sempre. Il pianeta è a +1,49 °C dall’era preindustriale. Ci risiamo... - Info Data
Ormai da due anni si infrangono drammatici record, di mese in mese. Il dato di #Copernicus racconta una storia che ormai assomiglia a una serie statistica più che a una sorpresa meteorologica. Febbraio 2026 è stato il quinto febbraio più caldo mai registrato a livello globale.
-
@VanityFairItaly @musica-e-show-VanityFairItaly anni di governo meloni e se ne vanta pure
-
Don't take New Hampshire for pomegranate.
-
Attacchi e ritorsioni nella guerra attuale
Nell’ultima settimana la sequenza è stata questa: l’Iran è stato colpito per primo in un grande sito energetico (il giacimento di gas South Pars), e solo dopo ha lanciato attacchi contro impianti energetici del Golfo, compreso il sito GNL del Qatar (che ospita la base USA da cui partono gli attacchi).
-
L'inizio dell'era dell'asparago ti fa essere meno triste per la fine dell'era della zucca
