Check the representations and warranties of the company (Article 4), particularly 4.6(a) and (b), which relate to the accuracy of its financials and SEC filings.

The accuracy of the representations and warranties are incorporated in 7.2(b) as a condition of the sale--so the buyer can use this to opt out.

Twitter has represented the number of bot accounts in its SEC filings (e.g. page 24 of its 2021 annual report).
   

You asked the right question, essentially, "which position benefits the rank and file users more?" I come to the opposite answer.

Vendor lock-in rarely benefits users. In this case, the creator proposal would allow rank and file users to switch social networks without having to rebuild their network from the ground up. It helps creators, but it also helps users.

I am more skeptical that it is feasible than that it would benefit users.

Unless you've seen the actual contract, I would be hesitant to claim that there is no due diligence provision.

(A due diligence provision is a provision where the purchaser examines the company purchased to see if the purchaser is getting what the seller claims. Determining the number of actual active users and users who are bots would normally be part of due diligence.)

Because due diligence provisions are standard boilerplate and don't get mentioned in news stories about contract terms. But they're omnipresent.

Also don't forget to disable the GPG key that is also installed, in /etc/apt/trusted.gpg.d/microsoft.gpg

That's not the younger generation. That's the small fraction of the younger generation intent on removing themselves from the gene pool.

The summary is overbroad. It would be more accurate to say:

In one state, the state supreme court has ruled that if an unmarked police tracker is removed, then police do not have probable cause to obtain a search warrant based on theft.

The 'in one state' is important because the other 49 states often come up with a completely different rule.

Economic term for your point: Tragedy of the commons.

Society tends to penalize crime based on how close it comes to violence and sex.

It does this because deep in our monkey hindbrains we feel that violence and sex cause problems that are comparatively hard to solve.

Though in-person theft is not a crime of violence, in-person theft predictably carries the risk of violence as people either resist having their property stolen or attempt to confront the thief. The story itself contains evidence of confrontations that approached violence, such as when the thief had a package forceably removed from her possession and responded with 'that's how people get shot'.

And white-collar crime is considered hard to defend because juries love socking it to a rich defendant who did something complicated with money that the government says is bad.

This is not Supreme Court fodder. The Supreme Court typically gets involved when two appeals courts disagree (also called a circuit split).

That is not the case here. The lower courts who have considered this issue all think the Plaintiff loses.

The Plaintiff, a porn company, filed a bunch of identical complaints in federal court in New Jersey, then asked for expedited discovery, which is 'discovery before you are supposed to get it.'

Courts don't like expedited discovery. In the Court's words in this opinion, "expedited discovery is the exception rather than the norm" (citation omitted).

In fact, a prior ruling from a federal court in DC called out in the New Jersey opinion said, 'hey, wait a second, these are bad lawsuits and bad discovery demands. Also, you are bad people.' When the New Jersey court saw that opinion, it said 'wait, hold up, there may be a problem here, hearing time.

So the Court held hearings to determine if the plaintiff had shown a good reason to violate the ordinary rules for how to handle discovery (ex parte hearings on ex parte discovery requests, because the defendants hadn't been identified).

The discovery here was needed to ascertain the identity of the shakedown victims, er, defendants. It involved subpoenas to ISPs. In the DC litigation, the DC court said Plaintiff's subpoenas were overbroad, so apparently in the NJ lawsuits the subpoenas were more specific.

The result of the hearings was that the Court said, 'You drafted your complaints wrong and they suck and should be dismissed, so you don't get discovery.' Dismissal because you drafted a claim wrong happens ALL THE TIME in federal court. (Federal courts are overworked and love dismissing claims at the pleading stage. This is why defendants love removing claims to federal courts.)

The court's backup reason, that 'your inability to identify defendants is not a good enough reason to violate our rules for orderly lawsuits even if you made your subpoenas more specific', is just that, a backup reason.

Generally, you can't appeal 'you drafted your complaints wrong and they suck and you suck too and stop violating our rules for orderly lawsuits' to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is stereotypically a bunch of Harvard and Yale graduates who are used to the highest standards of technical excellence and think everyone's writing sucks and would like everything to be neat and orderly. Also, the lower courts here are all agreeing.

Finally, Federal Courts like these shakedown lawsuits like a hole in the head. 'Business friendly' does not mean, 'wants to get in bed with mass-filing porn shakedown lawsuits.'

I read the CEO's statement, and I don't think Kickstarter said what they say it said.

But by all means set that strawman on fire.

I didn't check the rest of their argument because they lost my trust.

Trump, you say? I'm pretty sure that IBM's new system enables the police to search for orange-skinned criminals, too.

You're unlikely to get more binding precedent if you continue the lawsuit, though. , To continue the lawsuit, you have to have some confidence that the lawsuit is not going to be held moot now that the law (albeit ephemeral law) has changed.

Now, if the Justice Department changes it back later, they have 2 problems:

1. The last federal judge to consider the issue said it was likely the Justice Department were going to lose. (That's what it takes to get a preliminary injunction, which is what apparently jump-started this policy change.)

2. If Justice changes the policy again, the plaintiff will be able to make a 'recurring but evading review' argument.

(This is not legal advice.)

The CIA is supposed to spy on foreign subjects. How will the US manage to ban encryption for foreigners?
Banning the export of encryption already has been tried, and we see how effective that was.

On the contrary. I expect that there will be lots of forking on their wedding night, and likely quite a bit during the honeymoon as well.

This seems to be the Notice of Appeal