just so this doesn’t overwhelm our front page too much, i think now’s a good time to start consolidating discussions. existing threads will be kept up, but unless a big update comes let’s try to keep what’s happening in this thread instead of across 10.

developments to this point:

The Verge is on it as usual, also–here’s their latest coverage (h/t @[email protected]):

other media coverage:

  • tango_octogono@beehaw.orgEnglish
    3·
    1 year ago

    Yup it did

    Also something weird, when I saw this combo, iamthatis was the first reply. Now it’s way down there, despite the upvotes and gilds.

    I really don’t like putting on the tin foil hat, but since spez admitted in the past that he changed other users comments, I’m calling it, this guy is still messing around with things behind the scenes

      • cactusupyourbutt@lemmy.worldEnglish
        0·
        1 year ago

        doesnt that require monetary losses?

        sure, he lost out revenue from the spp, but that is due to the api changes and not due to the libel. might be difficult to argue otherwise, but Im also not a lawyer

        • semibreve42@lemmy.dupper.netEnglish
          0·
          1 year ago

          In the US, with slander and libel, there are two standards.

          If someone is a public figure, they need to show actual damages in order to be successful, this is the scenario you’re describing.

          If you are not a public figure, then you can sue for slander or libel without needing to show actual damages, just harm to your reputation or similar.

          So the answer on that turns on whether Christian Selig is a public figure or not - I do not know the answer to that question.

          • PoopyMcDickles@lemmy.worldEnglish
            1·
            1 year ago

            Christian is Canadian so the laws might be a bit different. I know a few people in Reddit mentioned that the laws would be more favorable to Christian since he’s Canadian, but I’m not a lawyer so I don’t know how accurate that is.