Alex, there is nothing wrong with settling litigation. Had you taken this all the way through, the money you raised would probably have paid only a fraction of your legal fees. I think most of your critics have no idea just how expensive this lawsuit would have been.
Alex, I’ve been a vocal fan of yours for a long time, and (for now) am continuing to financially support your Substack. However, this doesn’t pass the smell test.
I sincerely hope that, when the facts are revealed, your credibility is intact.
In other words, I hope my instinctive reaction is incorrect. But I’m not exactly holding my breath.
"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." Two lines later "Now the ask: ...[money please]."
Like many commenting, I'm happy to continue waiting to see what comes, and I will place the responsible level of trust in you to deliver on the above, emphatically stated, position that was used as a funding device.
If not, there ought to be a good reason. To preserve trust, that reason must either be something out of your control, unmistakably insurmountable, etc. Otherwise, if purely financial or something squishy, there ought to be an accounting and reimbursement of every dollar you received from ordinary people who contributed to the cause. (Recall: "there’s no reason anyone with a mortgage should be paying for this fight" turned into "But if we survive the motion to dismiss, I think I am going to start accepting smaller donations. I know a lot of you WANT to be part of this fight, you want the chance to make history and stand for free speech and let Twitter know that the way it treats dissenting voices is unacceptable. As long as we have a reasonable chance, I think it’s arrogant for me to reject that help")
The cause, of course, based on your rhetoric throughout the process, not being limited reinstating you to Twitter, or getting you a windfall, but being "Shin[ing] a Light on Twitter Censorship").
For now, I'm glad I never succumbed to the temptation to donate. That said, although I bought the book, until now, I've been living free on your Substack. I'll stick around and give you some value for the value I've received so far. That said, I hope the resolution here is less squishy than the attempted explanations so far.
Litigation has a way of firing up your emotions, then kicking your ass with injustice. Alex has gone way further towards crashing the gates of the establishment than anyone had a right to expect. Let's calm down and be patient.
Well said Danno. Litigation is complex in situations such as this, and I think we can all agree it's tough going against those with deep pockets... and their supporters in government circles with more than a passing interest in covering their butts!
Reading between the lines and thinking through the game theory, here’s my bet:
1 - The settlement allows Twitter to escape the embarrassment of revealing their, probably mean and certainly unhelpful, internal communications about you. But…
2 - In exchange for that, you get their external communications like with government representatives, in a way you can report or likely write a book about.
3 - if I were you I would have tried to get some cash too, since the need to avoid discovery was almost entirely twitters problem and there is time pressure on them.
To those of of who have been wronged and ( despite pleas to the contrary from friendly trial attorneys) become plaintiffs in litigation; and, ultimately forced to drop the suit due to the system’s inherent inequities, you have my sympathies.
“will there be a full discovery process and will the findings be made public? On this, your piece is decidedly opaque and convoluted, and I think that’s what people are reacting to.”
Thanks for this. Much more eloquently and cogently stated than my poor attempt.
If you can read between the lines here, Alex still has his eye on the prize: The truth about what is happening inside and outside of Twitter that is making a mockery of public debate and wielding gross censorship. I will be patient and see where this goes. My donation has already paid dividends to me.
I think we need to remember, the judge may well be reading this post and comments, and AB rightfully needs to restrain his language. Believe it or not, sometimes people need to edit what they say or write. (Hi Judge Alsup! Have a great 4th of July!!)
When all is said and done, I’ll be happy to see what you got out of it. I’m happy to have supported you on Substack and your lawsuit fund. You’ve been the breath of fresh (outdoor-with-no-mask) air that Team Reality all needed!!
What I've seen about Jordan Schactel I don't like as he has a pretty fast censorship trigger finger. But I do love the shot across the bow here from Alex. Lovely.
Glad you laid this out Alex. It may provide a better picture of the dual track nature of how discovery and a settlement are on dual tracks with many underlying interests and positions. Godspeed to it all.
Wouldnt get too excited until the settlement is sorted out. The underlying problem here that in IMO is the real heart of the matter is the US legal system.
Lawsuits functiinally, have nothing to do with the law. Lawsuits have devolved into nothing more than battles of financial attrition. The " system" is set so that the deep pocket....twitter....can stall and delay and attempt any legal gyration thats forces the shallow pocket.....AB....to continually spend money. They can do this literally for years on end.
Functionally this allows the deep pocket to literally financially bludgeon to death the shallow pocket. This system is neither just nor equitable nor what our founding fathers anticipated. The whole system has been bastardized to favor the wealthy. Seems that's a constant theme in much public discourse these days no?
My brother, a successful business lawyer in Los Angeles, would agree with every word of this comment, by the way. He has said the same thing to me and others in my family many times, including when any of us has had legitimate reasons to sue another entity or person for blatantly obvious and grievous injury, wrongdoing, and fraud. All the financial power lay with the abusive party; there was simply no way the injured party could possibly have won a lawsuit given the power structure we live in. This situation is maddening, infuriating, and deeply, fundamentally corrupt, but it is the ugly reality of the system we live in.
Very well said. People mistakenly believe there is fairness in the legal system. Especially if countersued, a small plaintiff could get into big trouble.
The judge limited the lawsuit to breach-of-contract only. But Team Alex got the discovery part left in because the judge favors it. And Alex can make it public afterwards. What's so damn hard to understand about that ... and I am not even a lawyer.
Alex, it is hopeless. You can't explain to the public how the legal system works. One has to experience it for themselves to grasp the true horror of it (hmm, just like the Matrix). People had unrealistic expectations. Perhaps you could have done a better job explaining the realistically possible outcomes, but I doubt it.
I don't regret donating, this is more or less what I expected to happen.
I think you can do a better job of writing in very simple, non-legalistic terms, what the hell happened here with regard to your June 6 statement. You’re opening the kimono and showing nothing.
You should sue Jordan Schatchel for libel, and anyone like him, but most particularly journalists who continue to knowingly lie. These people have to be *personally* held accountable.
Suppose that Twitter was taking orders directly from the federal government as to who to ban and who to promote on the platform based on the political desires of the WH, the bureaucrats, the FBI, etc., how are we ever going to find out about that clear violation of the 1st Amendment? Perhaps the discovery in this case will reveal it. Call me a cynic because I don't see Twitter handing that information over to the court even if a judge ordered it. I sure hope that I am proven wrong but I won't hold my breath. Good luck Alex.
"Those documents and emails and texts...would tell me whether I had a future state action claim - not against Twitter, but against the government itself."
Someone has filed a comprehensive lawsuit against the government itself, asking that Sec. 230 be struck in its entirety:
Sec. 230 has been misunderstood and misapplied almost from the beginning. Congress never intended to give social media platforms carte blanche to violate our constitutional rights and still be immune from all liability for any wrongdoing. Congress can't give agency powers to others (these private companies like Twitter) to do things—like violate our free speech rights—that it can't itself do under the law and the Constitution.
As I said yday. WE ALL KNOW what Twitter is and what Twitter does...its been obvious to all. That is all your gonna get. It's the knowing and not the actual holding of those perps accountable in any meaningful way. Just the way it IS. Kind of like Fauci...everyone KNOWS who he is and what he has done, but at worst he fades into a cushy "we the people" funded pension. This is how American justice works in "reality", but the knowing is something no one can take away
Nope.
Too many words.
Not buying it.
Welcome to my world: “Nope. Too many words” is the counterargument.
Alex, there is nothing wrong with settling litigation. Had you taken this all the way through, the money you raised would probably have paid only a fraction of your legal fees. I think most of your critics have no idea just how expensive this lawsuit would have been.
That is obvious from the comments to yesterday’s posts...
Alex, I’ve been a vocal fan of yours for a long time, and (for now) am continuing to financially support your Substack. However, this doesn’t pass the smell test.
I sincerely hope that, when the facts are revealed, your credibility is intact.
In other words, I hope my instinctive reaction is incorrect. But I’m not exactly holding my breath.
I stopped supporting him when he met with silence our requests to substantiate his attack on Dr. Malone and later on ivermectin.
Notice that this post discloses something which happened on April 28th.
"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." Two lines later "Now the ask: ...[money please]."
Like many commenting, I'm happy to continue waiting to see what comes, and I will place the responsible level of trust in you to deliver on the above, emphatically stated, position that was used as a funding device.
If not, there ought to be a good reason. To preserve trust, that reason must either be something out of your control, unmistakably insurmountable, etc. Otherwise, if purely financial or something squishy, there ought to be an accounting and reimbursement of every dollar you received from ordinary people who contributed to the cause. (Recall: "there’s no reason anyone with a mortgage should be paying for this fight" turned into "But if we survive the motion to dismiss, I think I am going to start accepting smaller donations. I know a lot of you WANT to be part of this fight, you want the chance to make history and stand for free speech and let Twitter know that the way it treats dissenting voices is unacceptable. As long as we have a reasonable chance, I think it’s arrogant for me to reject that help")
The cause, of course, based on your rhetoric throughout the process, not being limited reinstating you to Twitter, or getting you a windfall, but being "Shin[ing] a Light on Twitter Censorship").
For now, I'm glad I never succumbed to the temptation to donate. That said, although I bought the book, until now, I've been living free on your Substack. I'll stick around and give you some value for the value I've received so far. That said, I hope the resolution here is less squishy than the attempted explanations so far.
Litigation has a way of firing up your emotions, then kicking your ass with injustice. Alex has gone way further towards crashing the gates of the establishment than anyone had a right to expect. Let's calm down and be patient.
Well said Danno. Litigation is complex in situations such as this, and I think we can all agree it's tough going against those with deep pockets... and their supporters in government circles with more than a passing interest in covering their butts!
Reading between the lines and thinking through the game theory, here’s my bet:
1 - The settlement allows Twitter to escape the embarrassment of revealing their, probably mean and certainly unhelpful, internal communications about you. But…
2 - In exchange for that, you get their external communications like with government representatives, in a way you can report or likely write a book about.
3 - if I were you I would have tried to get some cash too, since the need to avoid discovery was almost entirely twitters problem and there is time pressure on them.
How’d I do?
Just quit with the words already, willya?
“A little less talk, and a lot more action”
To those of of who have been wronged and ( despite pleas to the contrary from friendly trial attorneys) become plaintiffs in litigation; and, ultimately forced to drop the suit due to the system’s inherent inequities, you have my sympathies.
What an absolutely asinine response. I wouldn’t have given it the time of day and that’s the kind version.
and Chris Bray's: https://chrisbray.substack.com/p/chris-bray-is-stupid-and-evil?utm_source=substack&utm_campaign=post_embed&utm_medium=web&s=r
“will there be a full discovery process and will the findings be made public? On this, your piece is decidedly opaque and convoluted, and I think that’s what people are reacting to.”
Thanks for this. Much more eloquently and cogently stated than my poor attempt.
You will hear from Alex about as much as people who requested his supporting with evidence his obviously baseless attack on Dr. Malone and ivermectin.
Notice that this post discloses something which happened on April 28th.
Mini-Madoff is laughing all the way to the bank.
He started out with "few words". You didn't buy *that*.
Now "too many words." You don't buy *this*.
The problem is starting to seem to be YOU.
If you can read between the lines here, Alex still has his eye on the prize: The truth about what is happening inside and outside of Twitter that is making a mockery of public debate and wielding gross censorship. I will be patient and see where this goes. My donation has already paid dividends to me.
Judge Alsup has his eyes on the prize. I don't think he wants to let Twitter off the hook.
I think we need to remember, the judge may well be reading this post and comments, and AB rightfully needs to restrain his language. Believe it or not, sometimes people need to edit what they say or write. (Hi Judge Alsup! Have a great 4th of July!!)
When all is said and done, I’ll be happy to see what you got out of it. I’m happy to have supported you on Substack and your lawsuit fund. You’ve been the breath of fresh (outdoor-with-no-mask) air that Team Reality all needed!!
What I've seen about Jordan Schactel I don't like as he has a pretty fast censorship trigger finger. But I do love the shot across the bow here from Alex. Lovely.
Glad you laid this out Alex. It may provide a better picture of the dual track nature of how discovery and a settlement are on dual tracks with many underlying interests and positions. Godspeed to it all.
That's good horse sense. 🐎
Wouldnt get too excited until the settlement is sorted out. The underlying problem here that in IMO is the real heart of the matter is the US legal system.
Lawsuits functiinally, have nothing to do with the law. Lawsuits have devolved into nothing more than battles of financial attrition. The " system" is set so that the deep pocket....twitter....can stall and delay and attempt any legal gyration thats forces the shallow pocket.....AB....to continually spend money. They can do this literally for years on end.
Functionally this allows the deep pocket to literally financially bludgeon to death the shallow pocket. This system is neither just nor equitable nor what our founding fathers anticipated. The whole system has been bastardized to favor the wealthy. Seems that's a constant theme in much public discourse these days no?
The system is broken.
This is the crux of the matter.
My brother, a successful business lawyer in Los Angeles, would agree with every word of this comment, by the way. He has said the same thing to me and others in my family many times, including when any of us has had legitimate reasons to sue another entity or person for blatantly obvious and grievous injury, wrongdoing, and fraud. All the financial power lay with the abusive party; there was simply no way the injured party could possibly have won a lawsuit given the power structure we live in. This situation is maddening, infuriating, and deeply, fundamentally corrupt, but it is the ugly reality of the system we live in.
TBird, I have learned hard way as well. We seem to be basting in corruption as a society.
Very well said. People mistakenly believe there is fairness in the legal system. Especially if countersued, a small plaintiff could get into big trouble.
The judge limited the lawsuit to breach-of-contract only. But Team Alex got the discovery part left in because the judge favors it. And Alex can make it public afterwards. What's so damn hard to understand about that ... and I am not even a lawyer.
To be fair, you explained it better in two sentences than Alex did in 10 paragraphs. Appreciate it!
Alex, it is hopeless. You can't explain to the public how the legal system works. One has to experience it for themselves to grasp the true horror of it (hmm, just like the Matrix). People had unrealistic expectations. Perhaps you could have done a better job explaining the realistically possible outcomes, but I doubt it.
I don't regret donating, this is more or less what I expected to happen.
I think you can do a better job of writing in very simple, non-legalistic terms, what the hell happened here with regard to your June 6 statement. You’re opening the kimono and showing nothing.
A great deal has been shown here.
Alex
You should sue Jordan Schatchel for libel, and anyone like him, but most particularly journalists who continue to knowingly lie. These people have to be *personally* held accountable.
Can’t wait to see them docs, bro.
Suppose that Twitter was taking orders directly from the federal government as to who to ban and who to promote on the platform based on the political desires of the WH, the bureaucrats, the FBI, etc., how are we ever going to find out about that clear violation of the 1st Amendment? Perhaps the discovery in this case will reveal it. Call me a cynic because I don't see Twitter handing that information over to the court even if a judge ordered it. I sure hope that I am proven wrong but I won't hold my breath. Good luck Alex.
"Those documents and emails and texts...would tell me whether I had a future state action claim - not against Twitter, but against the government itself."
Someone has filed a comprehensive lawsuit against the government itself, asking that Sec. 230 be struck in its entirety:
https://socialmediafreedom.org/fyk-vs-united-states-of-america/
Sec. 230 has been misunderstood and misapplied almost from the beginning. Congress never intended to give social media platforms carte blanche to violate our constitutional rights and still be immune from all liability for any wrongdoing. Congress can't give agency powers to others (these private companies like Twitter) to do things—like violate our free speech rights—that it can't itself do under the law and the Constitution.
Thanks Alex - appreciate the follow up and allowing us to “read between the lines” a little better. Very well written update!
Alex - careful not to upset the judge in the public square. You’re in the home stretch, man.
As I said yday. WE ALL KNOW what Twitter is and what Twitter does...its been obvious to all. That is all your gonna get. It's the knowing and not the actual holding of those perps accountable in any meaningful way. Just the way it IS. Kind of like Fauci...everyone KNOWS who he is and what he has done, but at worst he fades into a cushy "we the people" funded pension. This is how American justice works in "reality", but the knowing is something no one can take away
I feel like asking a question, but I realize it won’t be as productive as taking a nap.
Lol. really, lol