484 Comments

Everyone: I appreciate your passion here, but you don't know what you don't know. I am well aware of the commitment I made to you and my earlier public statements. That's truly all I can say right now. If you want to keep speculating and shooting arrows my way, go ahead.

Expand full comment

Um. What did you expect? And then not to even acknowledge the obvious situation with those that donated? And to deflect by bringing up some random point about Elon Musk?

Expand full comment

Agree, the Elon rant was totally and completely unnecessary... Sort of like when he took the shot at Dr. Malone.. Odd to say the least.

Expand full comment

Yeah. He's been known to be quite the little cunt. Blocked his emails several months ago after the Malone comments. I only heard about this via Reclaim The Net.

Expand full comment

I suspect he expected cooler heads among his subscribers.

A settlement has been reached in principle. A settlement that needs to be finalized. A settlement about which NONE OF US has ANY of the details, nor ANY indication that the details of the settlement will be suppressed.

I suspect he expected us to understand all of that. Perhaps that was his only mistake with this post, expecting more of us than we deserved.

Expand full comment

Re-read his post. He’s already laid the groundwork for not releasing anything substantial due to "confidentiality" agreements. I’m highly dubious that anything he ends up disclosing will be a far cry from the "help me" peel twitter's discriminatory practices wide open plea. Time will tell. And my bet is he'll be stringing everyone along with nothing substantial until the interest dies out.

Expand full comment

Ok, he's laid the groundwork. But until we know how much or how little he ends up revealing, it's premature for us to wax apoplectic over the unknown. IMO.

Expand full comment

I think you used a sort of double negative in your third sentence, saying, grammatically, the opposite of what you intended, which was, "I'm highly dubious that anything he ends up disclosing will be *close to* the "help me" peel twitter's discriminatory practices wide open plea."

Expand full comment

Exactly my thought — I almost got whiplash when he whipsawed from "but muh confidentiality agreement" to a complete non sequitur i.e. Musk. Methinks his "it’s not my fault" protestations are insubstantial and he knows it.

Expand full comment

I'm a lawyer and can't imagine how any settlement that Twitter would agree to would meet your prior commitments, but I am patiently waiting with some remaining hope. However, I would highly recommend that any settlement of a case that been this public and this publicly supported should not be confidential.

Expand full comment

Per Alex: "Not for reinstatement, not for money, not for all the viruses in China. I will NOT agree to any settlement that does not preserve my discovery rights about third-party communications AND give me the right to publicize them. There are other things I will (and have) given up, you have to give to get, but this is the reddest of lines."

Expand full comment

Thank you Angela for bringing this quote to the forefront!

Expand full comment

Zero chance a Twitter settlement will not include confidentiality. If Alex is true to his word, in spite of dollars dangling in front of him, he'll need to decline and go to court. He'll settle ("on the advice of counsel").

Expand full comment

sounds like a contract with donors

Expand full comment

Interesting thought....🤔😳

Expand full comment

Your curiousity to the result of a settlement doesn’t mean it’s in Berenson’s best interests, which are truly all that matter.

The reason for confidentiality in many of these cases is the defendant requires it to prevent copycat lawsuits and knowledge of how much can be gained by litigation. It’s possible Twitter would drop a confidentiality clause, but only by agreeing to a far smaller payout. As a plaintiff, I would happily take more and be required to keep my mouth shut than speak and get less

Expand full comment

It isn't truly "all" that matters after he made it a public interest lawsuit in his name supported by publicly solicited funds for a stated "reddest of all red lines" result. But, I'll withhold judgment until the fat lady sings. Aside from his insanely irrational reaction to all things Ivermectin, he's shown himself to be reasonably reliable and worth the risk.

Expand full comment

"WHEREAS, the parties propose no changes to the substance or sequence of the discovery

specified in the Order; "

Expand full comment

Exactly, take less money and have a TRANSPARENT settlement being people publically supported additional fuel for your fire.

Expand full comment

I am happy for you, if you got what you are looking for. I’m sad for me because I wanted you to bring them to justice. I in absolutely no way begrudge you for anything you do around this. You’ve been a beacon of light in a dark time. I just wanted a lot more light.

Expand full comment

There is no justice to bring them to. They are not bound by the 1st Amendment, they never owed anyone free speech or an account.

You rubes got played.

Expand full comment

Please show us proof that representatives of the federal government did not order or strongly suggest that Twitter ban Americans who disagreed with the official government stance.

Or at least show us evidence that a careful review of Twitter's internal communications was performed, and no evidence was found of collusion.

Oh wait, you can't.

Expand full comment

The claims for banning him were dismissed by the Court on April 29, 2022. If there was collusion, those claims would not have been dismissed.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.389677/gov.uscourts.cand.389677.39.0_1.pdf

Expand full comment

Lol - as tho the proceedings of our kangaroo courts have anything to do with "justice".

Expand full comment

There was no justice to mete out, Twitter never owed anyone free speech or an account, that's why the claims for banning him were dismissed in April.

Expand full comment

Sorry, all that evidence is “largely confidential”. 😂

Expand full comment

You seem to be a bot.

Expand full comment

No, I'm stating facts none of you clowns can refute.

Expand full comment

Take it easy on 'em. They're Lord & Savior just broke their naive wittle hearts!

Expand full comment

Their

Learn to spell, moron.

Expand full comment

Why do you feel the compulsive need to keep stating your facts here? I think we got your brilliant message. Now go back to the flat rock you live under.

Expand full comment

Awww...Zade got taken to the cleaners by Massa Alex.

Expand full comment

Depends on level of government collusion.

Expand full comment

There wasn't any.

Expand full comment

you don't yet know what the settlement is, before you can be happy or sad for Barenson or yourself

Expand full comment

If it's one thing we've learned throughout this 5+ year ordeal it's patience, so at least I will wait to see how this plays out. Many of us are just expressing our initial disappointment as we ALL KNOW what Twitter has been doing (hell I've even been banned for a time). We just want their EVIL to be revealed to all.

Expand full comment

Twitter isn't bound by the 1st Amendment, they never owed anyone free speech. That's not evil.

Expand full comment

It is when the US government uses it to stifle free speech to try and work around the 1st amendment.

Expand full comment

There was no collusion.

Expand full comment

Interesting that you can definitively say "There was no collusion".

Do you have access to Twitter's private correspondence with government officials? I highly doubt it. And if you don't, then at best you're just guessing. And in this case it's more like you're hoping.

Expand full comment

The claims for banning him were dismissed on April 29, 2022. If there was collusion, those claims wouldn't have been dismissed.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.389677/gov.uscourts.cand.389677.39.0_1.pdf

Expand full comment

Drink the kool aid--you look thirsty.

Expand full comment

He's not thirsty - he's a hired shill. It's kinda obvious.

Expand full comment

LOL see AAPS v. Schiff, Daniels v. Alphabet, Children’s Health Defense v. Facebook, Doe v Google...

Expand full comment

And you know this how? Proof?

Expand full comment

The claims for banning him were dismissed by the Court on April 29, 2022. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.389677/gov.uscourts.cand.389677.39.0_1.pdf

Expand full comment

I think it's EVIL when they suppress and ban posts on studies on therapeutics that could really help people battling COVID and then they promote any and all vaccine pushers. Thankfully they haven't been banning the posts on vaccine injuries/deaths lately, but by now most of the damage has been done. They are 100% EVIL in my book.

Expand full comment

Trolls gonna troll. Don’t bother.

We know the truth. I was banned from LinkedIn for sharing a NYPost article and asking “I thought vaccines worked? So why do you care if I have one or not?”

Free speech is fundamental and Twitter et al have a lot of apologizing to do.

Expand full comment

Private companies, like Twitter and LinkedIn, don't owe anyone free speech, they are not bound by the 1st Amendment.

If you boneheads knew this in the first place, you would never have donated to this grifter. LOL

Expand full comment

I disagree on all points and although Substack is private, I’m allowed to say what I want … and so are you … which exemplifies the very spirit of free speech, which is a fundamental human right.

Private businesses cannot discriminate against women, right? There are things that supersede public vs. private and I would argue free speech is atop all of it.

Go troll elsewhere. Twitter seems perfect for you, sir. Good day.

Expand full comment

Are you paid for each post? You're awfully snarky and repetitive. Fck off.

Expand full comment

We are approaching Standard Oil breakup levels with regard to Youtube, 90%+ online videos consumed by internet users. Vimeo is at like 9%. (Statista, 2022) What are the market shares for similar services to Twitter? How about Google for search? I completely get your 1st Amendment argument. We also have single corporations with massive shares in niche areas of what can be argued as the 'public square' for society today. What I see are dangers. The tendency to manipulate public thought, the government stepping in to 'suggest' what should and shouldn't be allowed based on political decisions, the incessant bombardment of completely false information by governments, the allowed tweets/videos on social media, and corporations...Do you see this as a danger? If not, then I would respectfully disagree. But if so, what are your thoughts?

Expand full comment

No, you're just a silly emotional child.

Expand full comment

Says the silly annoying child.

Expand full comment

Says the daft cunt

Expand full comment

Maybe that's the settlement? Twitter posters can talk all they want about vaccine injuries / deaths, as long as they don't talk about the war in Ukraine, or the WHO power grab, or any of a hundred other taboo topics.

Expand full comment

They're blatantly silencing speech for political reasons. It's as close to evil as you'll get. They're banning, for example. actual studies that go against a narrative they inexplicably support. But violent rhetoric from organizations like Antifa doesn't get banned. Actually, 1A or not - it is evil.

Expand full comment

No, it's not evil, they're a business making business decisions, that's their First Amendment right.

Why do you commies hate the 1A so much?

Expand full comment

These dolts are pro-business until someone that they *perceive* to be on their side decides to get his panties in a bunch.

Expand full comment

I've been called a lot of things in my life but commies is a first. Chapeau.

Expand full comment

Twitter is a for-profit corp making business decisions in order to attract ad revenue. You're against that, and you supported a lawsuit that would had the government controlling a private business and their free speech.

You're a commie and you didn't even know it.

Expand full comment

The federal government isn't allowed to stifle protected speech by proxy via third parties. If the government was ordering, or even strongly suggesting that Twitter suspend and ban people that didn't agree with the government's message, that is a first amendment violation. End of story. This is is basic con law.

And that doesn't even take into consideration that California has much broader protections for speech than those enumerated in the first amendment.

If Twitter acted on their own, then you would be correct. But they didn't, which is most likely why they are settling.

Expand full comment

The government wasn't ordering anything. The claims for banning him were dismissed on April 29, 2022, the discovery didn't show any collusion.

Expand full comment

Depends on level of government collusion.

Expand full comment

There wasn't any, the claims for banning him were dismissed on April 29, 2022.

Expand full comment

Alex sued in CA because free speech rights are different there according to their State Constitution.

Freedom of expression under the California Constitution

Every person may freely speak, write and publish his or her sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of this right. A law may not restrain or abridge liberty of speech or press.

Expand full comment

The claims for banning him were dismissed on April 29th.

Expand full comment

Twitter is the town square. So long as they can continue to censor public discourse in the town square, the settlement is a travesty of justice. Which is pretty well what one expects from our courts that are corrupt from top to bottom.

Expand full comment

Town squares are owned by the government, Twitter is not, it's private property. They are not bound by the 1A. The 1A lets them ban what they want.

Berenson didn't settle on his claims of being banned, those were already dismissed by the court earlier this year.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.389677/gov.uscourts.cand.389677.39.0_1.pdf

Expand full comment

three types of evil in this country. Multi nationals like the social media censor happy commies who hate the U.S. Straight up commies, and useful idiots like you

Expand full comment

They're for-profit companies making business decisions to attract ad revenue. They aren't bound by the 1a and they never owed anyone free speech. That's capitalism, not communism, you ignorant clown. LOL

Expand full comment

correct. But if you'll allow that social media has become the public square, then for the good of society, a 1A application seems like goodness, no ? (PS, I use twitter in the mode where I see (hopefully all) only what those I follow post. I don't defer to twitter to decide what's trending (tho Berenson restated would trend, eh ?)

Expand full comment

Public squares are owned by the government, social media companies are not, they're private businesses with their own 1A rights to ban what they want. You're saying you want the government to violate the 1A of those you disagree with. There is nothing good about that.

Expand full comment

Private companies don't get blanket indemnity from Congress

Expand full comment

Where's the hate icon?

Expand full comment

I supported your substack because I appreciate your articles on COVID/Vaccines. Not because of your legal case against Twitter.

Expand full comment

Actually, the Twitter case is important because we who follow on SubStack are many fewer than those who followed on Twitter. Twitter is where information reaches more of the public.

What we want to really know relates to the government telling Twitter what to publish.

Expand full comment

I'll listen, but there is a fundamental conflict between being a champion of truth, justice, and the American way, while at the same time signing onto a settlement in which "I won't be able to say much about."

Expand full comment

If you are worried about what others are saying about your settlement, be transparent so people don’t have to speculate about what they sent you money for.

Expand full comment

Dear Alex. We're not shooting arrows. Nature hates a vacuum and you've created a hell of a vacuum here. If you've enriched yourself without finishing the fight we all paid to see you're just as bad as all those you write about. Just sayin...

Expand full comment

I've got laugh my ass off at fools who donated money to someone suing Twitter over being banned. Twitter never owed anyone free speech or an account. lol

Expand full comment

Thanks Alex for the comments. Looking forward to more information in the near future.

Expand full comment

To be honest, I don't see how a settlement makes sense for Twitter at this point EXCEPT to stop discovery. Keeping internal documents and communications out of the public domain has to be their motivation. Discovery was what Team Reality desperately wanted, and would likely destroy Twitter's share price and increase Elon's leverage to discount his $54.20/share offer. Hoping Alex eventually lays out EXPLICITY his reason for the lawsuit, what he hoped to accomplish, and what terms he was willing to accept in a settlement. I can't imagine a legit reason for Alex to settle at this point. Maybe simply having his Twitter account reinstated was the goal??? I'll patiently wait and not jump to conclusions, but man right now, this REALLY hurts.

Expand full comment

There was nothing to discover, Twitter has a 1A right to ban what they want. When his claims for getting banned were dismissed by the court, he realized he had nothing so he offered to settle. Probably for pennies, and it was cheaper for Twitter to have insurance pay a nuisance settlement than to keep fighting.

You got played.

Expand full comment

I just see it as lawsuit because his right to post and share his facts and information… since he was treated unfairly as many Americans have been including president Trump.. because if you don’t think like they do

They eliminate you!… very wrong regardless of Alex’s reason I’m glad he is !

Expand full comment

He doesn't have a right to post on Twitter, nobody does. The court dismissed those claims, just like the court that dismissed trump's lawsuit.

Expand full comment

We live in America we still have freedom of speech!

The lefties in our government are slowly destroying that right..

Maybe your okay with it I am not

Expand full comment

The 1A protects people from the government only, not from Twitter. Nobody has freedom of speech on someone else's private property, dumbo.

Expand full comment

Then why make the post in the first place?

Expand full comment

OMFG!!! This is too perfect! Y'all rubes got suckered by your mortal enemy: (((a NYT "former" reporter))). That must truly sting.

Bravo, AB! I always knew you were on our side. Team Hysteria FTW assholes!!

Expand full comment

Thank you for commenting. This is reassuring.

Expand full comment

👍💪💪keep fighting for freedom of speech for all of us!

Expand full comment

His claims for being banned were dismissed in April. Twitter doesn't owe anyone free speech.

Expand full comment

I'm willing to wait and see what the settlement entails (I know, I know, isn't that awesome some anon poster says this, but hear me out). I think Berenson is enough of an ahole to not just settle for some lost revenue and reinstatement, he's going to want his pound of flesh too. He'll expose a glimpse behind the decision making process that led to his suspension. Even if that doesn't reset the suspension process, it'll be noteworthy.

If settlement means a gag order, and restatement, meh ... ya lost me.

Expand full comment

Incorrect. Berenson is enough of an asshole to swindle his semi-retarded acolytes. Taking some $ for a BS settlement is his MO.

Expand full comment

The claims for being banned were dismissed in April.

Expand full comment

Did you make money off these rubes who follow you? LOL They don't realize that Twitter isn't bound by the 1A and never owed anyone free speech.

Expand full comment

You're the biggest dork who follows him. I just read for free and a little entertainment. Only commented because you're an amazing idiot, and thought your unwarranted large ego needed to see what most people think of your comments.

Expand full comment

I don't follow the fool and I never gave him money or pay for anything here. LOL

Expand full comment

Who cares! You don't follow him...why are you here commenting? Are you 12 with your continuous LOL'S and other idiotic responses?

Expand full comment

Yikes! Sounds like someone, let's just call him "Shmalex Herenson," swindled poor Rick. It's ok Ricky. You'll still be able to buy mom's insulin. Just work a few doubles down at the warehouse.

Expand full comment

Only read for free and definitely didn't donate.

Expand full comment

Guyakaka....don't you have anything else to write?

Expand full comment

Give him a break...he's got weed to smoke, and one or two brain cells left to destroy.

Expand full comment

whoa whoa whoa. I thought the (or at least "a") primary purpose of the lawsuit was to see the extent of collaboration between gov't entities and Twitter? To the extent that isn't revealed, what did the contributors/supporters of your lawsuit get for their money? Having followed you for a couple years I hope/assume you ran them through the discovery ringer and will be able to make public who Twitter was colluding with in their bans/restrictions.

Expand full comment

Fair question - I will have some room to discuss it further once the settlement is finalized and filed.

Expand full comment

its really the only question that all of us want to know....and the most important.

Expand full comment

I know. In general I have been strategic about what I've said publicly about the lawsuit, and I believe those statements have served the suit well. I'm asking for a little more trust and patience.

Expand full comment

We need the discovery. I know you know this but it's worth repeating; they are pushing the fake vaccines on babies and the voices that could inform the public are still largely silenced. This has become life or death matter for millions of children. Parents are being denied the right to informed consent it has to stop.

Expand full comment

Today heard a radio ad from Chicago.gov encouraging parents to rush out and vaccinate their infants. Just infuriating!!

Expand full comment

Yeah, we want the discovery. This is bigger than you, Alex. As I guess you know.

And I share your concerns about Musk's conflicts, especially from China, which is remarkably effective in stifling speech they don't like.

Keep up the good fight,

Kim G

Roma Sur, Mexico City

Expand full comment

Will do....but the suspense is killing us!! LOL

Expand full comment

I trust you

Expand full comment

how about calling it for what it really is ... a bioweapon ...

Expand full comment

Sounds good!!!!

Expand full comment

Ditto

Expand full comment

That was my first reaction triggered by two words: settlement and confidential. That is not how the lawsuit was sold. Some room??? You're done!

Expand full comment

I humbly suggest we slow down. As a longtime follower of Alex I have a little more faith than you. Monetary terms could be confidential (and I'd be fine with that) but he could still be allowed to share other aspects of the case, such as CDC/NIH "consulting" that was done. Let's not string him up just yet...

Expand full comment

Monetary terms? That was not the purpose of the lawsuit and I spent over 10 years in courtrooms across the USA. Had Alex indicated that financial compensation was one of the goals, he wouldn't have raised a penny from well meaning strangers.

Expand full comment

as a fellow litigator, civil suits are always at least partially about the money. Alex suffered economic harm from being booted from twitter and i think he should be compensated for it. BUT, Alex did lead us to believe their was also a communal purpose behind the suit and that is why people pitched in to support it. I have zero personal relationship with Alex, but I do not believe we will get nothing for our support (at least I hope not, I just re-upped my membership this week).

Expand full comment

Economic harm from being booted from twitter? No, not really, because Twitter doesn't have a contract with anyone. Furthermore, the lawsuit was presented as a quest for truth, not money. In any case, we shall await the results.

Expand full comment

It's in the eyes--not necessarily the depth, though that can tell some--but in the eye movements and shiftiness easily discerninble. What I'm referring to Alex's numerous, contributing appearances on Foxy, notably, but others. I've written directly to AB, never a reply, about his self-motivating interests relative to his published writing and the deception in the subtext of his words, claims, etc.--always hinting at more revelations and truth, but sringing things--and so many of you suckered loyalists--along--but, those shifty eyes and what's always lurking behind them--some two years on! FWIW, this is how a psyops works--and who has learned and knows better than Alex Berenson--in fact, you're all so deeply loyal, your denials are palpable--with a journalist's innate perception, draw back--be objective and read back to yourselves your just written objections--part of your brain is aware of the plain truth, but yet, you persist on believing--'let's give him more time,' and I laugh at how much time Berenson has had with the lot of you. Just look in the mirror and see a fool...

Expand full comment

You appear to know how to detect a fool quite well. I am certain that you have plenty of mirrors. Cheers!

Expand full comment

Concur.

Expand full comment

Alex, I thought your payday was going to come from book sales and media appearances where you told the story of “How I beat Twitter”--not from a confidential payment from Twitter. 

Expand full comment

Will you re-purpose the "money for my legal defence" and buy a beach house? Or just invest it? Obviously your living costs are covered many times by Substack subs.

Regardless of whether you did not break your commitment RE:settling, you didn't USE all the money that you gathered. I'm sure many of the donors are less well off people.

Expand full comment

You know amount donated & how many billable hours Alex’s lawyer spent battling a social media giant?

Conclusion jumping is emotional, not logical. You do not have the information to make this assertion. Save your anger for the authoritarians trying to take your right to even have this interchange. I donated 2x bc I believe in the concept of this battle, & will wait patiently for detailed outcome.

Expand full comment

LOL at "authoritarians." You boneheads use social media by choice, and they don't owe anyone free speech. That's why the courts dismissed the claims for banning him two months ago.

You rubes got played.

Expand full comment

I think a ton of people, including me, will unsubscribe instantly if that 'further discussion' is not convincing.

Expand full comment

I'm not accusing Alex of legal wrongdoing, and I believe Alex is absolutely entitled to compromise claims without needing permission from anyone, including his subscribers. But money was raised to cover Alex's attorney's fees for the litigation. I believe Alex was initially reluctant to solicit donations. What did those who donated think they were supporting?

Expand full comment

To each his own, but this SPECIFIC lawsuit was not about compromise, a.k.a. settlement. It's that simple!

Expand full comment

fair point. But as i did not read anything from AB guaranteeing a minimum outcome in return for legal support ,so the donors sent money based on what they hoped/believed would happen not based on a specific promise. I doubt AB would be swayed by a life changing monetary event but look at the pro golfers taking LIV money from the Saudis. Every man has his price and maybe AB is swayed by the "good he could do." Not likely though. He asked for patience and I will do so.

My concern is that his priorities might be different than ours. His voice being heard might be more important to him than revealing gov'ment collusion with Twitter. And he might be right about that as I suspect that if Twitter said "we banned Berenson because Biden aske us to," the collective response from most media and political elite would be a collective yawn.

Expand full comment

He very much guaranteed that he wouldn't settle. That's why so many people are commenting.

Expand full comment

This is the entire game. If Twitter was getting their marching orders from the Federal Government - that's actually the textbook definition of fascism. You would also then enable millions of others to sue the federal government for violating first amendment rights via third party proxy.

I thought that's what you were going for here. If this was just a personal quest to get back on twitter, well....that's a bummer.

Expand full comment

true but maybe that is not the case. It could be very likely that Twitter was censoring on behalf of the gov'ment without being asked. One thinks of King Henry muttering about being rid of a "troublesome priest." Twitter did that because they perceived that the admin would like it and since they fiercely disagreed with alex felt good about and maybe expected favortism from Biden becasue of it.

Expand full comment

“Send me money so I can sue Twitter to find out things during Discovery. People send Alex money. Judge orders Discovery. Alex settles the lawsuit before Discovery.” Um yeah I’m sorry but nothing you “reveal” later is going to change the 100% fact that this was a straight up grift.

Expand full comment

Bingo! “ and even then I won’t be able to say much about the specifics of the settlement, as those are largely confidential”

Ask for $$$ so you can expose Twitter - then cash in with nothing to show. You had a thread recently about people renewing their memberships - HARD PASS GRIFTER.

Expand full comment

Fools got played. lol

Expand full comment

Getting this far in a law suit is huge, big companies don’t settle like this unless they know they are truly F***ed. The stress put on Alex’s family has to be extreme, so whether we as supporters get what we wanted to see, pales in comparison of the weight of the stress Alex and his family must be have been under the past 24 months. It would be awesome to see and know what the little bird did, but having been there, relieving that stress from his family is more important than us getting our money’s worth, in my opinion…then again, I only donated $50.

Expand full comment

That's definitely not true. They weigh the cost of litigating with the cost of a settlement. Most of the time the cost of a settlement is much less than the cost of actually going to trial. Bonus is that much less information ends up being disclosed than would be in a public trial. I don't blame Alex one bit for taking a settlement. He has to weigh the same thing. How much will it cost to go to trial (in financial terms and stress) versus what he can get in a settlement. Especially when the outcome of the trial is still very much a coin flip.

Expand full comment

There is truth here. Look at how Oberlin College has treated Gibson's Bakery. They have 'won' but there is a good argument to be made that they killed their family members with the stress in the process. And they do not care.

Expand full comment

Once again, the economic toll on Alex comes from having his reputation tarnished by Twitter's claims that he posted "disinformation." This is a concept that seems lost on many people.

Good luck, Alex.

Expand full comment

He didn't sue for defamation.

Expand full comment

No, he didn't use "defamation"in the suit, but it's the basis for damages.

Expand full comment

No, it wasn't.

Expand full comment

I can absolutely appreciate the strain of a lawsuit, particularly one of this magnitude. But on the surface, a settlement appears as a very easy way out for Twitter and basically allows them to continue in the manner they have been. Kind of like all of the MSM who bashed and slandered Nicholas Sandmann and then went on to do so to Kyle Rittenhouse and whoever else they feel they can. They just pay and keep on doing what they're doing.

Alex, I can only imagine what this lawsuit and Twitter has put you and your family through. But please don't settle with the devil.....expose the scum for what they really are, and all those who lay in bed with them.

Expand full comment

Sandmann settled for pennies, there were no judgments against the media and no one had to retract anything. And rittenhouse is racist trash who has even less of a case.

Berenson settled for pennies, and the claims for banning him had already been dismissed in April. Rubes...

And he filed the lawsuit, he put himself through it. What's wrong with you?

Expand full comment

And you have proof that Kyle is a "racist"? Just stop. He was a kid who thought he was helping during a REAL insurrection.

Expand full comment

Don't waste your energy on this turd fly. Concocted account just to annoy.

Expand full comment

Well said!

Expand full comment

He's a racist piece of garbage, and calling him one is not defamation.

Expand full comment

He is a young person who went there to help people who were injured by the rioters. in fact he had already helped some people when he was attacked. He wanted to go to college to study nursing. That's gone now. The media and celebrities defamed him publicly so he will never be able to have a normal life. By the way the 2 men he killed were attacking him and one tried to grab his gun. Not that it matters but the 2 perpetrators were white. Many people do not know that, they assumed he shot 2 black men. They both had lengthy criminal histories. Maybe you're the one who has a problem with race.

Expand full comment

Nobody defamed him.

Expand full comment

It’s racist for a white guy to shoot a white pedophile who is trying to beat his head with a skateboard.

Expand full comment

In your not at all humble opinion. And YAWN, everybody who doesn't march in lockstep with the current buzz is not a raaaacist.

Expand full comment

Rittenhouse is a hero who took out the trash. America needs more like him.

Expand full comment

First Malone, then Ivermectin, now Mask … not to mention settlement. How much evidence does one need to see through Berenson?

Expand full comment

Last comment and then i need to get back to work. I believe the reason Alex "pinned" my original comment was because of the last sentence, specifically- "will be able to make public who Twitter was colluding with in their bans/restrictions." Alex can't say much now until everything gets reduced to writing and signed, but this was his way of acknowledging the concern and assuring us he isn't walking away with a check and leaving us out in the cold. He must've drawn blood and we'll get to see at least some of it.

Expand full comment

Color me skeptical.

Expand full comment

But he just said in his post, regarding when the settlement is finalized, "even then I won’t be able to say much."

Why are you still giving him the benefit of the doubt??

Expand full comment

Thank you... let's hope so!!

Expand full comment

He did say..."Not for reinstatement, not for money, not for all the viruses in China. I will NOT agree to any settlement that does not preserve my discovery rights about third-party communications AND give me the right to publicize them. There are other things I will (and have) given up, you have to give to get, but this is the reddest of lines."

So I guess we can assume that he will be publicizing any discovery about 3rd party communications???

Expand full comment

I think so. Despite Guyaka's repeated simpleton assertions that demonstrate he has no working knowledge of the lawsuit, Cali law (lawsuit was filed there for a reason), or the judge's rulings to date, Twitter recognized it had a potentially catastrophic problem on it's hands and had to capitulate to some extent. How much money it paid or how much it agreed to make public remains to be seen, but Berenson can't retain any credibility unless he has something substantive he can share. I've seen the skeptics piling on in this thread, but having read Berenson for 2+ years I know he views himself as a principled reporter and serious thinker. He cannot take the money and run and expect to have any ongoing influence. Patience isn't my strong suit, but I'm nearly certain he'll be vindicated when the dust settles and the people throwing rocks will be proven wrong. He's got evidence of Twitter and gov't actors collaborating and we'll get to see it, at least that is my best Carnac the Magnificent impression.

Expand full comment

The claims for banning him were already dismissed by the court in April. All he had left were breach of contract and promissory estoppel, nothing catastrophic for Twitter.

If there was evidence of collusion, those claims would not have been dismissed.

Expand full comment

how many people has Twitter banned/suspended? If Berenson wins there is legal precedent and a roadmap for everyone one of those people to file copycat lawsuits. With liability already established, it would be just a matter of determining damages, and that is something approaching a catastrophe for any deep pocketed organization.

Again, I haven't read the judges ruling lately, but my memory is he ruled 230 protected twitter, so your oft-repeated 1a assertion is partially correct. I don't think it follows that means there was no evidence of collusion. but we'll see. i'm often wrong and will readily admit it whenever Berenson shares the goods (or no goods).

Expand full comment

HIS CLAIMS FOR GETTING BANNED WERE DISMISSED.

What part of this are you having trouble understanding? Twitter has won every single lawsuit filed against them for account bans. Berenson is not going to win, he has already lost.

Read the April 29th ruling, the court said those claims are futile and they were dismissed.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.389677/gov.uscourts.cand.389677.39.0_1.pdf

Expand full comment

i am having trouble understanding what the breach of contract claim (which you admit he still had) was for. sale of a house? job offer? hmmm. or was the breach of contract berenson getting banned?

Expand full comment

Did not he assert in the article that he will not?

Expand full comment

You know what he discovered? That Twitter has a 1A right to ban what they want.

Expand full comment

Is that all you've got? Because you've said that ad nauseam. There would be no need for any "confidential settlement" if that was all there was to it 🙄

Expand full comment

His claims for getting banned were already dismissed by the court in April. All he had left were breach of contract and promissory estoppel, nothing catastrophic for Twitter.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.389677/gov.uscourts.cand.389677.39.0_1.pdf

Expand full comment

over and over, that is all he's got. anyone can look up the complaint and see that Berenson and his legal team alleged enough to get beyond 1A arguments, which were ultimately dismissed by the judge. I haven't read it lately, but my recollection is the case was moving forward on contractual theories (and maybe some related equitable theories because of statements made by Jack, detrimental reliance maybe??).

Expand full comment

"Berenson and his legal team alleged enough to get beyond 1A arguments, which were ultimately dismissed by the judge."

LOL Read that out loud, slowly...

Expand full comment

not even sure what we're arguing about anymore. i acknowledge his 1a theories of recovery were tossed, and you acknowledge he still had a claim based in contract and estoppel. most people are interested in what discovery produced, and it doesn't matter which legal theory he got it under.

Expand full comment

I’d love to see how those funds were spent...

Expand full comment

we never will see that...similar to the Epstein list. No one will know

Expand full comment

There will be no discovery, that is why Twitter settled. The fact is that Alex cannot raise enough money to fight Twitter for years. I'm sure Alex was well compensated, but we will never know the amount. Never put too much faith in humans, as we are all fallible. Everyone with a brain knows the govt. is in collusion with big tech. Twitter owns Joe's admin and the DOJ is corrupt as hell. Nobody really needs Twitter and in 5 years they may be gone anyway. I always said Twitter is a sewer and never joined. I think a lot of people get their ego boosted by the number of followers, even though many are bots. Musk is no angel, but he could make it much better.

Expand full comment

You dummies need to realize that private entities don't owe anyone free speech. All Berenson would have discovered is that Twitter has a 1A right to ban what they want.

Expand full comment

Bam! You got everyone... oh wait, If they are doing it on behalf of the government than it is illegal.

Expand full comment

The claims for banning him had already been dismissed in April.

You clowns don't know that, do you?

BAM!!!

Expand full comment

https://nypost.com/2021/07/15/white-house-flagging-posts-for-facebook-to-censor-due-to-covid-19-misinformation/

White House press secretary Jen Psaki said Thursday the Biden administration is identifying “problematic” posts for Facebook to censor because they contain “misinformation” about COVID-19.

Psaki disclosed the government’s role in policing social media during her daily press briefing after Surgeon General Vivek Murthy called on companies to purge more pandemic posts.

The demand for censorship — and Psaki’s admission of government involvement — follows a series of flip-flops from health officials who contradicted themselves throughout the pandemic on issues such as mask efficacy, as well as censorship of claims that later gained credibility, such as the theory that COVID-19 leaked from a Chinese lab.

“We are in regular touch with the social media platforms and those engagements typically happen through members of our senior staff and also members of our COVID-19 team — given as Dr. Murthy conveyed, this is a big issue, of misinformation, specifically on the pandemic,” Psaki said.

Expand full comment

What would democratic socialist and all-around shitty writer, George Orwell, say about this situation? Don't care? Too bad. Simulation Commander will blather on incoherently about the subject over the next two months.

Expand full comment

Well, we KNOW BotBot would just ignore the actual meat of the comment and instead hurl some drive-by insults.

Expand full comment

In April, the court dismissed his claims for being banned , there was no collusion. Get over it.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.389677/gov.uscourts.cand.389677.39.0_1.pdf

Expand full comment

And because Alex Berenson was the only person banned from Twitter, THIS TOTALLY PUTS ALL THOSE ALLEGATIONS TO REST!

Expand full comment

Maybe they should have hired you for their legal team, genius.

Expand full comment

The claims for banning him were dismissed in April. He realized he had no case so he offered to settle, probably for pennies. LOL

Expand full comment

You don't settle cases that have been dismissed.

You're, literally, fantasizing about the settlement. If that makes you happy, you be you!

Expand full comment

There were several claims filed. In April, the Court dismissed the claims for banning him. There were other claims that remained, but not for banning him.

Don't take my word for it, look up the case online, Case 3:21-cv-09818-WHA Document 39 Filed 04/29/22

Expand full comment

Who cares? *You* invented the relevance of that and fantasized about it leading to a settlement worth 'pennies'.

My point is that they wouldn't settle if they could get a relevant dismissal.

Keep cheering for censorship, weirdo.

Expand full comment

As long as we have arrogant jerks like you to inform us, we will be fine.

Expand full comment

LOL Cry more, rube.

Expand full comment

Did you wake up on the wrong side of the bed this morning? You're extremely hostile even for an anonymous chat.

Expand full comment

Berenson grifted fools who gave him money over a frivolous lawsuit, you're mad at the wrong person.

Expand full comment

You misunderstood my post. YOU"RE the one who's mad.

Expand full comment

There will be no discovery, that is why Twitter settled. The fact is that Alex cannot raise enough money to fight Twitter for years. I'm sure Alex was well compensated, but we will never know the amount. Never put too much faith in humans, as we are all fallible. Everyone with a brain knows the govt. is in collusion with big tech. Twitter owns Joe's admin and the DOJ is corrupt as hell. Nobody really needs Twitter and in 5 years they may be gone anyway. I always said Twitter is a sewer and never joined. I think a lot of people get their ego boosted by the number of followers, even though many are bots. Musk is no angel, but he could make it much better.

Expand full comment

There will be no discovery, that is why Twitter settled. The fact is that Alex cannot raise enough money to fight Twitter for years. I'm sure Alex was well compensated, but we will never know the amount. Never put too much faith in humans, as we are all fallible. Everyone with a brain knows the govt. is in collusion with big tech. Twitter owns Joe's admin and the DOJ is corrupt as hell. Nobody really needs Twitter and in 5 years they may be gone anyway. I always said Twitter is a sewer and never joined. I think a lot of people get their ego boosted by the number of followers, even though many are bots. Musk is no angel, but he could make it much better.

Expand full comment

There will be no discovery, that is why Twitter settled. The fact is that Alex cannot raise enough money to fight Twitter for years. I'm sure Alex was well compensated, but we will never know the amount. Never put too much faith in humans, as we are all fallible. Everyone with a brain knows the govt. is in collusion with big tech. Twitter owns Joe's admin and the DOJ is corrupt as hell. Nobody really needs Twitter and in 5 years they may be gone anyway. I always said Twitter is a sewer and never joined. I think a lot of people get their ego boosted by the number of followers, even though many are bots. Musk is no angel, but he could make it much better.

Expand full comment

There will be no discovery, that is why Twitter settled. The fact is that Alex cannot raise enough money to fight Twitter for years. I'm sure Alex was well compensated, but we will never know the amount. Never put too much faith in humans, as we are all fallible. Everyone with a brain knows the govt. is in collusion with big tech. Twitter owns Joe's admin and the DOJ is corrupt as hell. Nobody really needs Twitter and in 5 years they may be gone anyway. I always said Twitter is a sewer and never joined. I think a lot of people get their ego boosted by the number of followers, even though many are bots. Musk is no angel, but he could make it much better.

Expand full comment

There will be no discovery, that is why Twitter settled. The fact is that Alex cannot raise enough money to fight Twitter for years. I'm sure Alex was well compensated, but we will never know the amount. Never put too much faith in humans, as we are all fallible. Everyone with a brain knows the govt. is in collusion with big tech. Twitter owns Joe's admin and the DOJ is corrupt as hell. Nobody really needs Twitter and in 5 years they may be gone anyway. I always said Twitter is a sewer and never joined. I think a lot of people get their ego boosted by the number of followers, even though many are bots. Musk is no angel, but he could make it much better.

Expand full comment

There will be no discovery, that is why Twitter settled. The fact is that Alex cannot raise enough money to fight Twitter for years. I'm sure Alex was well compensated, but we will never know the amount. Never put too much faith in humans, as we are all fallible. Everyone with a brain knows the govt. is in collusion with big tech. Twitter owns Joe's admin and the DOJ is corrupt as hell. Nobody really needs Twitter and in 5 years they may be gone anyway. I always said Twitter is a sewer and never joined. I think a lot of people get their ego boosted by the number of followers, even though many are bots. Musk is no angel, but he could make it much better.

Expand full comment

I was hoping you would litigate this to the end so that it could serve as a precedent for others. I am not sure what a settlement will accomplish toward the greater good. This is why I, and I presume others, sent in funds for legal fees. All of the malarkey the federal government was doing needs to be exposed. I thought this was the case that would do that.

Expand full comment

Agreed. Seems suspect. People chipped in for the greater good and based on certain misrepresentations that he'd pursue this all the way (I think). Seems like the elements of fraud are satisfied if folks relied on this and paid towards the fund, only to have a quick settlement.

Expand full comment

You're all a bunch of rubes who gave money to a clown who filed a frivolous lawsuit. There was nothing to expose. Twitter is not bound by the 1A, they can ban whatever they want. They never owed anyone an account.

Expand full comment

I 100% respectfully disagree with you

Expand full comment

You're disagreeing with facts. The court dismissed his claims for being banned earlier this year.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.389677/gov.uscourts.cand.389677.39.0_1.pdf

Expand full comment

There's a lesson there as I've learned by experience as well: don't pay money HOPING for an outcome, i.e., if it's not a written deal, hope is just that: hope.

If you donate money to a cause you believe in, give it and forget about it. You didn't do anything wrong whether the money gets used as you hoped or not, never give more than you can afford to lose.

Expand full comment

I would much, much rather see all of the Discovery that Twitter was supposed to provide than a settlement. I feel like "we" lost, but "you" won.

Expand full comment

Ditto

Expand full comment

Very unfortunate. I thought you had said you would not reach a settlement, and would expose all the information and the extent of collaboration between twitter and the government in the censorship efforts? Curious what your price was.

Expand full comment

Alex, I contributed $$ after you said you wouldn't settle; that you were going all the way on this. Hoping I won't feel cheated as more info becomes available.

Expand full comment

From June 6th:

"Further, discovery rules generally allow me to publicize what Twitter gives me, unless I agree to a protective order. That’s why I wrote three weeks ago in The Wall Street Journal that “My Lawsuit Will Shine a Light on Twitter Censorship.”

"As we debate the power and political influence of social media companies, this discovery offers a unique opportunity to see how Twitter and the federal government and others may have colluded against my voice. No one else has this chance. No one.

"And I am not going to give it up.

"Not for reinstatement, not for money, not for all the viruses in China. I will NOT agree to any settlement that does not preserve my discovery rights about third-party communications AND give me the right to publicize them. There are other things I will (and have) given up, you have to give to get, but this is the reddest of lines."

He didn't say he wouldn't settle. He said he wouldn't settle if that settlement meant he couldn't discuss what he found in discovery.

Expand full comment

Good point... Thank you for posting this!

It's just curious though.... from Twitter's point of view....once the cats out of the bag what is their incentive to settle? I get it one assumes settlement means monetary payment but once the secrets are exposed from Twitter how can Twitter benefit from a settlement?

Expand full comment

A nominal, for it, dollar amount and relatively bad press that last the attention span of the American consumer rather than a massive payout and endless bad press. I'll wait for the details but given there were no guarantees of victory for Alex this may have been his best path forward.

Expand full comment

The fact that they want to settle probably means their lawyers are telling them that they are going to lose at trial and that it's best to cut their losses with settlement. A honest lawyer will say those things. A dishonest one will say go to trial knowing he or she will lose but keep the meter ticking. So, maybe, though Twitter is dishonest, they actually hired an honest lawyer or two!

Expand full comment

Or the cost of going all the way isn’t worth the victory?

Expand full comment

Excellent point! I for one believe that Alex will stick to this point, and not sign a settlement that won't let him disclose the perps and their bad behavior. I'm not ready to throw him under the bus. Hold your fire, guys and gals!

Expand full comment

Hope? Reread this post. He already told you, “I played you, sukka!!!” 🤬

Expand full comment

You know what he discovered? That Twitter has a First Amendment right to ban what they want.

Expand full comment

Where are we on this

Expand full comment

Me too.....I should have gone with my gut and not belived him. He's always talking trash about trump....there were signs he was spineless.

Expand full comment

I assume there were enough zeros to render all future book sales and substack subscriptions insignificant. This isn't going to help with the grifter label.

Expand full comment

we got hosed

Expand full comment

LMAO Why would you have donated money to some clown suing Twitter over getting banned? They never owed anyone an account in the first place, you got scammed! LOL

Expand full comment

Hey, Guyaka. While your robotic comments are more indicative of an occupant of a foreign troll farm (if you're not a follower/subscriber & you think as you do, why waste valuable working hours scrolling through and issuing identical comments to people on an issue that means nothing to you? No one with a life does that.), on the extreme off-chance that you're an actual person confused about the issues: The opinion you're espousing is one side of a debate that has been going on for years now, the question of whether Section 230 is being abused/misapplied to Big Tech platforms. If your argument is true, that they "don't owe anyone" free speech because they're "private companies", than they should be entitled to the benefits that are currently conferred to them as if they were public infrastructure. And if they are DIRECTLY COLLUDING with the government that they are supposedly independent of, they are nothing more than a concealed enforcement arm of the state and are in deep doo-doo. Educate yourself on exactly what the hell people have been talking about for the last several years, the search terms "Big Tech" and "Section 230" will be helpful. If you want to try and forward your side of the debate, maybe come up with a way to address the contradictions that those of us who decided years ago that it's time to acknowledge that these are no longer mere "private companies" and anti-trust them yesterday. Or keep pulling that string out of your back & saying "Twitter don't owe nobody no free speech DURRRR LOLOL Twitterz duh private company don't owe no furst uh-mendment LOL" in your best "Polly wanna cracker" voice.

Expand full comment

If you want to know about Section 230, read the case law, like Zeran v AOL. 230 provides immunity from liability for 3rd party content to everyone online, even when they block. And it aligns with the 1A rights of private entities to control the speech on their private property.

And there is no collusion with the government, look up Doe v Google, Case 5:20-cv-07502-BLF, October, 2021, or ICAN v YouTube, AAPS v. Schiff, Daniels v. Alphabet, Children’s Health Defense v. Facebook...all recent cases making the same claim, and all failing.

There is nothing in 230 to abuse. I know what people have been talking about, but they, like you, don't understand Section 230. You don't seem to realize that private entities are not bound by the 1A, and they in fact have a 1A right to censor what they want. Look up the 11th Circuits decision to stop Florida's anti-censorship law.

Sound real enough for you?

Expand full comment

Obviously you don't follow Alex and what the case was about.

Expand full comment

I don't follow him, but I followed the case, and the claims for banning him were dismissed in April.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.389677/gov.uscourts.cand.389677.39.0_1.pdf

Expand full comment

On your word that you wanted discovery to expose the lies, I sent $1000 to your attorney. If you made a monetary settlement, I expect a refund.

Expand full comment

I'm repeating my comment above: don't pay money HOPING for an outcome, i.e., if it's not a written deal, hope is just that: hope. If you donate money to a cause you believe in, give it and forget about it. You didn't do anything wrong whether the money gets used as you hoped or not, and you can't control someone else. Never give more than you can afford to lose or that you would regret. We all learn this lesson eventually, usually by experience, hopefully not too painful experience.

Expand full comment

Transactional relationships—ever heard of this? Berenson told his subscribers that this was a hill he would die on. Discovery—to bring Pzizer to its knees. I’m all too familiar with donating to causes, nonprofits, political candidates. And any regrets were due to bait & switch from the original purpose, mission. My advice to Alex is to refrain from updates that confused his subscribers, which he succeeded in doing.

Expand full comment

"My advice to Alex is to refrain from updates that confuse his subscribers."

This.

Expand full comment

LMAO A fool and her money...

Expand full comment

Hmm…are you going to make the discovery documents public? As you said that was your bold red line?

Expand full comment

Well that’s a disappointment. You let us down Alex. We sent you money to fight twitter… not settle. Settlement might not have been as bad if you had at least not agreed to the confidentiality BS.

You let all of us down Alex. Now twitter wins in the long run.

Expand full comment

So if a settlement in your favor happens, will you be returning donations?

Expand full comment

Wait, what? You're taking a secret, confidential settlement?! I thought the point was to get discovery regarding Twitter's nefarious dealings?!

Expand full comment

There were no "nefarious dealings," he realized that and probably offered to settle for pennies. LOL

Expand full comment

People didn't write checks to you for a settlement with a NDA.

Expand full comment

So you got paid, no legal decision is made regarding their conduct so they get to continue on as if nothing happened.

Expand full comment

Lawyers always win...everyone else, not so much.

Expand full comment

Remember what Shakespeare said about lawyers……..

Expand full comment

Raising money to fight twitter from supporters, and then accepting a payoff from Twitter to go away along with strings attached that you can't talk about the settlement. This is laughable.

Expand full comment

American justice at it's finest

Expand full comment

If your suit gets settled, then what prevents Twitter from doing the same thing they did to you to the next Alex Berenson? I was hoping your lawsuit would end their ability to censor anyone who posted what they didn't like.

Expand full comment

The claims for banning him were already dismissed in April, Twitter isn't bound by the 1a, they never owed anyone free speech.

Expand full comment

No reason to dump on Musk. Not nice.

Expand full comment

why would you even agree to non-disclosure of the "specifics"? Reasonable chance they just paid you to go away

Expand full comment

I’m not in position to say what you should or should not do, but I have a far greater respect for the Project Veritas approach to NEVER settles…

Expand full comment

If you received a monetary settlement in excess of the amount of money you received, in the aggregate, from all the people that provided money for your legal challenge, I assume you will pay back all the people? If not, could you explain the rationale? In other words, if you aren’t going to expose Twitter for the scoundrels they are (conspiring with government, stifling free-speech, allowing their woke workforce to dictate company policy, etc) through, interrogatories, discovery, depositions and possibly a trial, then it seems the people who paid money towards your legal fight may not have gotten what they bargained for. In any event, I’d be curious to hear what if anything you will do for your supporters (particularly if you received a monetary settlement).

Expand full comment

He’s already done that. They aren’t settling because they’d win. Regardless of the final settlement, the allegations stand.

As for the money, he should keep it. Anyone who donates to a legal fund with hopes of getting it back is hopeless.

Expand full comment

People donated to force Twitter to disclose their coordination with government and to reveal their non disclosed "policy" for shadow banning and throttling. That was the victory, not monetary damages. This settlement effectively torpedos any hope that information will come out now.

Expand full comment

And certainly didn't cost $2 million.

Expand full comment

Twitter never owed anyone free speech, they can ban what they want. They've already disclosed this in the terms everyone on Twitter agreed to, that say they can ban you for any or no reason.

Expand full comment

Troll away champ. They very obviously haven't applied the terms equally to all users.

Expand full comment

Their terms say, "We can ban you for any or no reason..."

Expand full comment

Then they’re fools. Why would Alex expose himself to potentially crippling losses (no matter how strong his case) when a settlement does, in point of fact, expose them. They’re entire façade is built on the notion that they can do anything they want on “their” platform. A settlement exposes this for the sham it is and opens the flood gates for others to pour through should they not allow free speech on that platform. It proves that their defenses are paper tigers and it’s only going to get worse.

Expand full comment

No....it doesn't. With a settlement there is no proof that there was coordination with government entities to censor conservatives. There is no proof that certain accounts were throttled down. Alex promised that the truth would come out. Twitter settled to prevent that from happening. If you don't understand that reality, then you deserve to be taken for a ride.

Expand full comment

The claims for banning him were dismissed in April. They didn't settle on that.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.389677/gov.uscourts.cand.389677.39.0_1.pdf

Expand full comment

The claims for banning him were dismissed by the court in April.

Did he forget to tell you this? I wonder why...

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.389677/gov.uscourts.cand.389677.39.0_1.pdf

Expand full comment

Allegations aren’t worth anything without, at a minimum, a court ruling in one’s favor. Alex or anyone could allege anything but the legal process would allow Alex (in this particular case) to expose the coordination, to the extent it exists, among other potential wrongful conduct.

Companies and individuals often settle when they might otherwise win the case, because sometimes the potential win will come at too great a cost (time, effort and money). Pyrrhic victories are just that, possibly not worth the cost. Essentially Twitter is not a loser in this action if they can maintain they settled for the nuisance value of the case.

People donated to this legal fund because Alex said he’d attempt to expose Twitter and those within the government who coordinated with them. This isn’t donating to a legal fund, in a vaccum, as Alex laid out his purpose for filing the complaint and legal contributions came in based upon his promises.

Expand full comment

At first glance, I'm a bit pissed off about what Alex has said this morning also, but let's give him some time and the benefit of the doubt. If it turns out we were played, then I lost $50, but Alex will also have exposed himself as a ONE TRICK PONEY who has contributed very significantly to getting the word out about the Vaccines, but he has been monumentally and WILLINGLY wrong on some other very, very important things like early therapeutics (HCQ/IVM), Trump and now possibly this Twitter ordeal. Three strikes and you're out AB! You're on a short leash now my friend.

Expand full comment

or calling it for what it is .... a bioweapon ...

Expand full comment

I thought this was about exposing them more than paying you off so why settle if you have to then keep your mouth shut? Particularly because you were pretty confident you would

ultimately win in court?

Expand full comment

Twitter is dead as more than a third of the accounts are rumored to be "bots". The number could even be higher.

Expand full comment

It’s at least 70%

Expand full comment

Exactly, it is fake.

Expand full comment

Major grift vibe here. You were very clear that you wanted to get to the bottom of the relationship between Twitter and the Biden admin. Now it’s obvious that wasn’t true. I don’t care that you settled, which should put you back on Twitter. But that’s not how you sold this, soliciting donations so you could pursue this lawsuit and expose Twitter. … very disappointed in you

Expand full comment

So, basically, you're being bought off. Got it. Honestly, I thought this crusade was less about you and more about exposing gov't/social media collusion in violating the First Amendment of countless Americans.

Expand full comment

As many here, I thought the main motivation of the lawsuit was to expose Twitter.

A settlement is as good as a dismissal from that initial perspective

Expand full comment

Sure glad I didn't contribute my $ if Alex is going to just settle. Hopefully he returns the funds to those that did.

Expand full comment

Not going to jump the gun here but I will be grievously disappointed if the terms preclude any revelations pertaining to Twitter’s ties to the government.

Expand full comment

Wait, you're settling????

Expand full comment

Congratulations on your settlement. As for Musk, I don’t see how restricting the speech of employees about work is even remotely in the same league of restricting free thinking individuals on an “open” platform.

Expand full comment

Alex, I didn't donate to your lawsuit, so I have no stake here. But in my opinion, you owe it to all those who DID donate to this cause to REFUSE any settlement agreement that does not allow you to disclose the terms publicly. You benefit no one but yourself if you enter into an agreement that keeps the terms private. My guess is you will agree to it, because unfortunately it's become crystal clear in the past 10 months that you are a one-man band, not a team player. But that's a crying shame, in my opinion.

Expand full comment

I couldn't care less about confidential financial terms of settlement. However, settlement before full discovery is completed means Twitter and their collaborators are paying to keep smoking guns from being made public. If discovery is never completed, AB himself has no idea what and how much they are hiding. I can't imagine the NDA will permit disclosure of any of the stuff in AB's 6/6 post about what's most important about the suit.

Expand full comment

We supported Berenson just to realize he is just another fraud looking out for himself

Expand full comment

Without this part happening:

"Not for reinstatement, not for money, not for all the viruses in China. I will NOT agree to any settlement that does not preserve my discovery rights about third-party communications AND give me the right to publicize them..."

I expect a refund of my donation.

Expand full comment

Grifter

Expand full comment

Why settle?

Expand full comment

I hope this agreement is good news for ALL Twitter users.

Expand full comment

I wish this had gone to court so you would lose, then appeal, then lose until you get to SCOTUS. It’s important to have gone through a process that I feel would have ruled that the government acting in contravention of the 1st amendment by holding press conferences demanding that SM ban individual citizens, that Twitter then banned (and was therefore also in contravention of the 1A). Alas...

Expand full comment

It's all about the discovery. If they hide (or gag you from disclosing) the juicy discovery, then you have let everyone down.

Expand full comment

I hope you refund the donations. By settling you cut off the path to the SCOTUS and don't establish a legal precedent. From a personal risk point of view I understand why you are willing to settle. From a making history, curbing the tech censorship and helping save our Republic point of view, many are very disappointed. Money wins!!

Expand full comment

I feel like I felt when I watched the freedom convoy in Ottawa get crushed under Trudeau’s jackbooted thugs… after a glimmer of hope that average people (or person in this case) could rise up and challenge the authoritarian system, it’s all just an illusion and the system will always triumph. :(

Expand full comment

God, I hope you’re wrong. And, still not over what Trudeau did to the truckers.

Expand full comment

I dunno. They just re-arrested Tamara for accepting an award for freedom and taking a photo…

Expand full comment

Oh no………..I think Trudeau thinks blue collar workers are beneath him. He is such a flower.

Expand full comment

We’ll said. That sums up how I felt after reading AB’s post this morning.

Expand full comment

I can't speak for other people, but I donated to the legal cause because suing a major corporation is not cheap and I wanted to see an injustice corrected, not because I expected a certain outcome. I am in no way naive enough to believe that the collaboration between this current administration and social media will ever be revealed. They've got the freaking justice department carrying water for them! Twitter settling is a win because it is an admission that they do not want something exposed. Settling is a win IF Alex is allowed back on Twitter because Alex is symbolic for so many who have been banned or been placed in temporary Twitter jail.

Expand full comment

Ooooh, your comment just made me calm down. thanks

Expand full comment

Happy to help :)

Expand full comment

Are you going to refund all those who donated to your cause?

A full refund plus interest would be fair.

Expand full comment

hmm

Expand full comment

Ditto on the “hmm”

Expand full comment

I hope (and assume) that as part of the settlement you will be allowed back on Twitter (also assuming you want to be). I also understand you probably cannot respond to my comment right now.

Expand full comment

Settle? WTF??!! If you do settle and do not expose twitter you will be just another bullshit grifter. Guess it doesn’t matter though, as it appears integrity always has a price. Later, loser grifter.

Expand full comment

Y’all are dupes. Total joke.

Expand full comment

Wait, a lot of us gave contributions to help get all of this info out. We all wanted to know, publicly, the BS that the birdy is keeping. Are we going to get to see what all of this was about somehow? If I am missing something and this is all going to come out, then disregard my comment/question. Hopefully I am just reading this incorrectly. It wouldn't be the first time.

Expand full comment

Looking forward to full public disclosure of all documents regarding communication between Twitter and anyone pressuring it to throw you off Twitter.

Expand full comment

What a waste... they are just going to ban you again. They will never give you the legal opening again.

Expand full comment

Recovery of legal fees, an official apology, some damages that are real due to lack of access, and restored access to the platform I bet are the minimums here. Twitter gets to not take the L in court, and the quiet part out loud is that should they do this to people again they know they can be sued, and loose. Although I'm sure the TOS gets changed promptly to avoid that....

Expand full comment

Seems Alex is taking some heat, and everyone should have some patience. And to clarify, he is right, we dont know anything. My above post is an educated guess about the high points of the settlement.

Expand full comment