| > The law firm says the surgeon made false claims. (Which claims? Were they false?) This is in the Fortune story. UHC provided a direct quote, right after some text you quoted, and the post continues on with the claims the lawyers make. >The implication of this news item is that UHC has hired a shakedown operation to chill criticism on social media. Big if true. But it seems to really matter whether the people on either side are telling the truth. Implication? UHC uses the services of a high profile law firm that openly advertises itself as specializing in "defamation matters and representing clients facing high-profile reputational attacks" and, sent a surgeon treating a UHC patient, a C&D letter, over a social media post. The firm worked for Dominion - and if anyone cares to look back, their record, like nearly every other electronic voting company, isn't very good. There's really nothing in the story that is unbelievable, and by your own admission we can see how they very carefully phrased it as 'never asked or expected'. This means she'd have to prove that missed calls resulted in delayed care for UHC patients - likely possible, but cumbersome... Frankly it seems like you didn't read the article fully, or you're being disingenuous. |