Check the representations and warranties of the company (Article 4), particularly 4.6(a) and (b), which relate to the accuracy of its financials and SEC filings.

The accuracy of the representations and warranties are incorporated in 7.2(b) as a condition of the sale--so the buyer can use this to opt out.

Twitter has represented the number of bot accounts in its SEC filings (e.g. page 24 of its 2021 annual report).
   

You asked the right question, essentially, "which position benefits the rank and file users more?" I come to the opposite answer.

Vendor lock-in rarely benefits users. In this case, the creator proposal would allow rank and file users to switch social networks without having to rebuild their network from the ground up. It helps creators, but it also helps users.

I am more skeptical that it is feasible than that it would benefit users.

Unless you've seen the actual contract, I would be hesitant to claim that there is no due diligence provision.

(A due diligence provision is a provision where the purchaser examines the company purchased to see if the purchaser is getting what the seller claims. Determining the number of actual active users and users who are bots would normally be part of due diligence.)

Because due diligence provisions are standard boilerplate and don't get mentioned in news stories about contract terms. But they're omnipresent.

That's not the younger generation. That's the small fraction of the younger generation intent on removing themselves from the gene pool.

The summary is overbroad. It would be more accurate to say:

In one state, the state supreme court has ruled that if an unmarked police tracker is removed, then police do not have probable cause to obtain a search warrant based on theft.

The 'in one state' is important because the other 49 states often come up with a completely different rule.

Economic term for your point: Tragedy of the commons.

Society tends to penalize crime based on how close it comes to violence and sex.

It does this because deep in our monkey hindbrains we feel that violence and sex cause problems that are comparatively hard to solve.

Though in-person theft is not a crime of violence, in-person theft predictably carries the risk of violence as people either resist having their property stolen or attempt to confront the thief. The story itself contains evidence of confrontations that approached violence, such as when the thief had a package forceably removed from her possession and responded with 'that's how people get shot'.

And white-collar crime is considered hard to defend because juries love socking it to a rich defendant who did something complicated with money that the government says is bad.

This is not Supreme Court fodder. The Supreme Court typically gets involved when two appeals courts disagree (also called a circuit split).

That is not the case here. The lower courts who have considered this issue all think the Plaintiff loses.

The Plaintiff, a porn company, filed a bunch of identical complaints in federal court in New Jersey, then asked for expedited discovery, which is 'discovery before you are supposed to get it.'

Courts don't like expedited discovery. In the Court's words in this opinion, "expedited discovery is the exception rather than the norm" (citation omitted).

In fact, a prior ruling from a federal court in DC called out in the New Jersey opinion said, 'hey, wait a second, these are bad lawsuits and bad discovery demands. Also, you are bad people.' When the New Jersey court saw that opinion, it said 'wait, hold up, there may be a problem here, hearing time.

So the Court held hearings to determine if the plaintiff had shown a good reason to violate the ordinary rules for how to handle discovery (ex parte hearings on ex parte discovery requests, because the defendants hadn't been identified).

The discovery here was needed to ascertain the identity of the shakedown victims, er, defendants. It involved subpoenas to ISPs. In the DC litigation, the DC court said Plaintiff's subpoenas were overbroad, so apparently in the NJ lawsuits the subpoenas were more specific.

The result of the hearings was that the Court said, 'You drafted your complaints wrong and they suck and should be dismissed, so you don't get discovery.' Dismissal because you drafted a claim wrong happens ALL THE TIME in federal court. (Federal courts are overworked and love dismissing claims at the pleading stage. This is why defendants love removing claims to federal courts.)

The court's backup reason, that 'your inability to identify defendants is not a good enough reason to violate our rules for orderly lawsuits even if you made your subpoenas more specific', is just that, a backup reason.

Generally, you can't appeal 'you drafted your complaints wrong and they suck and you suck too and stop violating our rules for orderly lawsuits' to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is stereotypically a bunch of Harvard and Yale graduates who are used to the highest standards of technical excellence and think everyone's writing sucks and would like everything to be neat and orderly. Also, the lower courts here are all agreeing.

Finally, Federal Courts like these shakedown lawsuits like a hole in the head. 'Business friendly' does not mean, 'wants to get in bed with mass-filing porn shakedown lawsuits.'

I read the CEO's statement, and I don't think Kickstarter said what they say it said.

But by all means set that strawman on fire.

I didn't check the rest of their argument because they lost my trust.

You're unlikely to get more binding precedent if you continue the lawsuit, though. , To continue the lawsuit, you have to have some confidence that the lawsuit is not going to be held moot now that the law (albeit ephemeral law) has changed.

Now, if the Justice Department changes it back later, they have 2 problems:

1. The last federal judge to consider the issue said it was likely the Justice Department were going to lose. (That's what it takes to get a preliminary injunction, which is what apparently jump-started this policy change.)

2. If Justice changes the policy again, the plaintiff will be able to make a 'recurring but evading review' argument.

(This is not legal advice.)

As someone who was briefly an art major, drawing is largely a matter of practice and having the proper foundation (which is gained by practice). Classes increase the rate that practice helps. If you practice, art education teachers have already figured out how to help you improve. What you see in high school art classes is the division between people who care and people who don't. People who don't care don't practice and consequently don't have the foundation to practice further. Because there's no future in art, in college the only people who take art classes are the ones who care and who have the proper foundation, so (allowing for the typical small class size) there is a much more normal distribution in skill.

I'm sorry, but you lost me at, "If Hollywood has taught me anything about the Judiciary system," Because if Hollywood has taught me anything about the judicial system, it's that attorneys in criminal courts are people who are better looking than people you meet in real life, crime scene videos are infinitely zoomable so you can see the killer's microscopic tattoos, that judges like you to give a mini-criminal procedure lecture every time you make an objection, and that juries are actually impressed by grandstanding.

IANAL, but I work for a defense lawyer who handles expungements.

The whole point about expungement is that the court thinks you were guilty but is letting you off anyway because you've filled certain statutory criteria.

The most usual criterion (other than turning 18) is the passage of time.

This isn't justice delayed. The delay is the whole point. The court still thinks he's guilty but is letting him off anyway.

This means he can stop fighting REGARDLESS on whether or not the justice system thinks he was guilty.