Kathryn Tewson: Sadly, the first amendment says that you can't sue someone because you disagree with their opinions about you.

Kathryn Tewson @kathryntewson.bsky.social · 22 days

No.

As someone with an aegis blue label.... The fact that they left them in place after dissolving when it became clear that they didn't label fairly... Yeah, it poisons the entire experience of bluesky.

That may or may not be true, but it’s not defamatory.

Given that the entire thing dissolve because they were knowingly giving false labels.... I'm actually kinda curious how it's not?

Isn't the knowing falsehood the primary necessity for defamation?

Seems like it hits all 4? Which one does it miss?

1. What’s the false statement of fact? 2. What evidence is there that the statement was known to be false at the time of publication? 3. What damages did the user suffer? 4. What evidence is there that the user’s damages were caused by the publication of the statement?

1.Openly admitted by aegis blue. 2. Openly admitted by aegis blue. 3. You know as well as i do this is fungible with a bit of effort, since harm isn't purely monitary. 4. Same as 3.

Hell, let’s skip “false” for the moment. Where in Aegis’s labeling is there a statement of fact?

This says the user *has* done this. Not that the user might have, or any equivocation of any kind. None of them are phrased as opinion.

“Includes.” The list is illustrative, not exhaustive.

And that too is fungible. But here's another one that is a straight statement of fact:

“Includes.” What statement of fact is made about the user?

Well, by being tagged as a network attacker, they have stated that that person has: "performed some level of abuse of at ATPro network"

No they haven’t. They’ve stated that some of the people who have that label may have done that.

No, they stated that all of the people did. "includes users who have performed some level of abuse of the atprot netowrk." That is the full list of what is contained.

The ingredients label on these ginger oat cookies looking at says “includes: nuts, wheat, milk.” Does that mean that’s all that’s in it?

It means i won't find a non food ingredient in it.

Yeah, but that’s based on the fact that they’re sold for consumption. If I hand you a burlap sack and say that the contents include children’s books, paper grommets, Beanie Babies, and Hershey’s kisses, that doesn’t mean that it must not contain a snowglobe.

No, but if you hand it to someone else, and tell them i said it contained those items, and it doesn't, and i get treated differently because of it.... You have responsibility.

Maybe! But not *liability.* For that, you need a false statement *of fact.*

Which we have. They have tags that specifically state people have done enough "abuse" to qualify under several different computer fraud acts. Since just opening a web page when the defendent doesn't want you to can qualify. especially if you're in the right court.

I'm sure Aaron Swartz would like that if he could.

I'll be honest, my entire problem is with a company saying "Sorry, we lied about it all, sucks for you guys, enjoy the labels tho, we're gonna leave em, cause fuck you" And if that's not illegal, it absolutely should be, the same as any other pollutant.

Sadly, the first amendment says that you can't sue someone because you disagree with their opinions about you.

And i have no interest in doing so. But the people they're accusing of federal crimes might?

They haven't accused anyone of federal crimes. They've said that people with this label have engaged in conduct that the people who run the label-maker consider to be similar to certain other kinds of conduct, some of which meets some of the elements of a federal crime.

Which, is more than enough to cost someone tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees. www.theverge.com/2021/12/31/2... Stupider things have happened

The governor of Missouri still doesn’t know how websites workwww.theverge.com According to him looking at website source code is a crime

Yeah, the state is desperately overpowered and probable cause is a real slim standard. That doesn't create liability for a user who expresses an opinion.

The law they use apples to anyone accused of a computer crime Do you think that particular person with power would consider an Aegis tag a significant enough marker? Cause i guarantee you, no one would have said "view source" could be prior to that.

That case is dumb as fuck, I'm not arguing with you there. But by this standard, if I tell people that you view the source of web pages, am I liable to you for damages?

Post