[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.