[danShumway]

I thought the GP comment was wild, but "I just got my welfare check, time to hire a lawyer" is an even stranger take.

Suing people is unpleasant and expensive and tends to favor people with money who can afford to hire effective lawyers, very few of whom will work for so little that they can be afforded on welfare. If people on welfare are suing someone, it's probably because they actually have a grievance with them and feel legally wronged, regardless of whether their lawsuits are frivolous or not.

I don't think anyone on welfare is thinking, "the most enjoyable way for me to spend this money is to get involved in a legal process." If a lot of Kiwi Farms lawsuits come from people who are jobless and on disability, I think the more likely conclusion is that it might have something to do with who the site's common targets were.

[richbell]

> I thought the GP comment was wild, but "I just got my welfare check, time to hire a lawyer" is an even stranger take.

I don't have any links on hand, but from what I recall they were all Pro Se. My understanding is that many of them were discovered by KF in the first place because they were vexatious litigants.

One of the vexatious litigants had previously sued Taylor Swift and threatened to abuse her lawyer's daughter, resulting in a high-profile lawyer representing Kiwi Farms Pro Bono against him.

The truth is wilder than fiction.

[danShumway]

> My understanding is that many of them were discovered by KF in the first place because they were vexatious litigants.

That seems if anything to reinforce the idea that this is unrelated to welfare?

- KF finds some vexatious litigants and starts targeting them

- The vexatious litigants sue KF

- ???

The pattern that's jumping out to me here isn't that people are on government assistance.

[richbell]

> That seems if anything to reinforce the idea that this is unrelated to welfare?

I don't recall claiming that it was because of welfare. I'm merely providing context to one of the earlier posts — a number of people on government assistance are constantly trying to take the site down, the admin notices a pattern with the DDoS attacks, and speculates it's because that aligns with when government assistance is paid out.

I am not saying that his speculation was true, but it makes significantly more sense if you understand why he may have come to the conclusion.

[UncleMeat]

Are people on assistance not allowed to sue people?

The narrative is obviously "those idiot leftists on the dole don't have jobs and waste their time and money on this." The causal relationship is critical to the narrative.

[richbell]

> Are people on assistance not allowed to sue people?

Of course they are, which is why I never said or implied this.

I am referring to people who spend years filing frivolous lawsuits that are continuously dismissed for things like improper jurisdiction, failing to state a claim, or suing the wrong people, and ignore any judgement or advice provided by the judge. Hence why I referred to them as vexatious.

> The narrative is obviously "those idiot leftists on the dole don't have jobs and waste their time and money on this." The causal relationship is critical to the narrative.

I am fairly left-leaning and grew up on government assistance. There is no narrative beyond describing factual events.

I will try to link some relevant court cases when I get home.

[tsol]

To be fair just because you're on welfare doesn't mean there aren't issues you are concerned about enough to do extraordinary things about. Lowered expectations for the poor are another sort of negative generalization.

[danShumway]

That's a fair criticism, thanks for pointing it out -- definitely wasn't my intention to say that people with lower incomes are never going to be involved in a lawsuit, just that it's probably not going to be a common thing that they're doing for fun.