[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.