[mercurialshark]

Sure, I'll circle back with a longer form response in a few minutes. In the meantime, I find it interesting that people think down voting my comment will intimidate me into changing the analysis. That's not how legal judgment works. That's not how anything works...

[btilly]

Look at it from other people's point of view.

Argument from authority is one of the weakest forms of argument. If you want to weaken it, you turn it into argument from claimed authority that no evidence was offered for. If you want to weaken it even further, you set that weak argument against a judge's decision and the reasoned analysis of other people who clearly have read the legal briefs and have pointed out specific problems with the arguments made.

This is exactly what you did. Now maybe you are exactly what you say and you are exactly right. However based on your current content, you are indistinguishable from a troll. And that is exactly how people are responding to you.

If you don't want people to treat you as a troll, you need to provide enough actual meat that it is clear that you are not a troll. But until you are willing to do that, you should expect the response that you are getting.

If your expectations are different, then that is your mistake. You should learn how the internet works and adjust your expectations accordingly.

If you want an example to look at, see https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=rayiner. He is a respected lawyer who often posts opinions that run counter to the average opinion on this site. But when he speaks about the law, people listen. Not because he claims to be a lawyer, but because he speaks in a way that demonstrates his knowledge of the subject.

[gameswithgo]

I downvoted you not because I thought it would intimidate you, but because it lacked any content at all. You just asserted something without explanation. It was a low quality post. The way you respond to the downvotes now also makes me think you are not even arguing in good faith, but just doing performative victimization.

[roenxi]

A legal professional saying a case is interesting, on a forum of mostly technical people, is a contribution. Even if a small one given a lack of supporting argument.

If tptacek, security researcher, says a case is no real case (even with arguments) and an attorney contradicts him then that is evidence tptacek is wrong.

Realistically, I still expect Ptacek to be right - I don't see how Amazon could be forced to host something they don't want to. Nor why it would make sense to make them to. So I hope this lawsuit fails. But the way Parler was assassinated seems a bit questionable and there might be some cause for complaint there. It may be that AWS's terms of service are overruled by some law somewhere and they'll owe someone money.

[jcranmer]

I must disagree here. Someone essentially saying "I have professional authority; you're wrong" is to me worth even less than a bare declaration of "you're wrong"--it is nothing more than an appeal to authority if there is no reasons given for the opinion.

Or, put more simply, to me, reasoning from a non-expert trumps non-reasoning from an expert.

[croon]

> A legal professional saying a case is interesting, on a forum of mostly technical people, is a contribution. Even if a small one given a lack of supporting argument.

> If tptacek, security researcher, says a case is no real case (even with arguments) and an attorney contradicts him then that is evidence tptacek is wrong.

There is no evidence lest it's explained why the former is wrong. I know for a fact that a judge with actual credentials didn't think the case had merit. Now LiquidmetalFish claims otherwise, without any supporting arguments or reasoning.

[Someone1234]

Maybe they, like me, read the court's frankly damning opinion and didn't find that your fact-less argument from authority contributed to the discussion.

If you wanted to write a "long form" (?) reply then you could have done so. In the meantime the hand wave above has to stand on its own merits; or more specifically fall on its lack thereof.

[mercurialshark]

I don't think responding in less than five minutes was unreasonable. It's also not legal advice, simply my personal opinion on some of the numerous issues that are likely to be litigated.

I also think this entire thread will be worth revisiting upon appeal.

[Someone1234]

> I don't think responding in less than five minutes was unreasonable.

This only further highlights how unnecessary the original low value reply was. Instead of responding with something of substance that took five additional minutes to write, you told us your qualifications instead of your views.

> I also think this entire thread will be worth revisiting upon appeal.

I don't really see why. None of the reasons you got downvoted have anything to do with this specific case (low effort comments, arguments to authority, complaining about the response to the forementioned, and then arguments that are poorly explored/rely on erroneous facts).

Even if Parler ultimately won via an entirely new theory of US law as you have argued, it wouldn't change that your comments here today could have been better and would have been received better if they were.

[jcranmer]

I don't see how this case will go anywhere on appeal: the facts that are actually alleged in the complaint are simply too thread-bare to support any matter of law that could be appealed, and Parler hasn't claimed anything that would allow your legal theory to apply to this case.

[soperj]

@mecurialshark, likely has nothing to do with trying to change your opinion. Likely has more to do with you posting your credentials as a reason to trust you but giving us nothing more than that.

[yholio]

Thanks, that must explain why his legal opinion below was downvoted to a similar degree.

[acdha]

It's not intimidation as much as a content-free post. You claim to be a lawyer and I have no reason to doubt that but that doesn't mean that your opinion is authoritative: for example, Sidney Powell and Rudy Giuliani are lawyers but they clearly do not let either the facts or law prevent them from saying whatever is politically expedient.

Your subsequent comment avoided all of that by having something tangible which can be evaluated.

[dragonwriter]

> I find it interesting that people think down voting my comment will intimidate me into changing the analysis.

I find it interesting that you think you can read minds as what expectations downvoters have about their downvotes’ effect on your behavior.

As you say, “That’s not how anything works…”

[mercurialshark]

I do not possess power to read minds, nor anticipate the court's actions. I find it all, very interesting!

[DonHopkins]

If you don't possess power to read minds, then you shouldn't say things like "I find it interesting that people think..."

Is that how you talk to the judge in court?

[pmoriarty]

"I find it interesting that people think down voting my comment will intimidate me into changing the analysis."

If you actually offered an analysis that demonstrated your expertise you would have probably gotten upvotes instead of downvotes.