You overlook that a significant portion of FB’s market value is based on its completely out of proportion market domination. Breaking up FB will hit Zuck’s bottom line significantly.
You overlook that a significant portion of FB’s market value is based on its completely out of proportion market domination. Breaking up FB will hit Zuck’s bottom line significantly.
Trust violation is based mainly on % of the market the company holds. Facebook owns Instagram and WhatsApp giving it outsized control over the social media market.
So in the early 1980s when the US finally got its act together and broke up the AT&T monopoly, should all those people pushing for it have given up the telephone?
Those $69 billion may be nowhere near enough to stop a responsible Justice Department from breaking up Facebook (likely Google and Amazon too, but those can wait for another day) so he may well want to pay attention.
The point is not whether the news article upsets you. It is whether the article is actionable libel.
I never thought I’d see something that would make the fifty shades films seem like a competent porn substitute, but here we are.
It’s as if no one can give anyone any props for things done or accomplished, like it’s just so trying to acknowledge other people like stuff or something has meant a lot to others.
As Shampyon says above:
As Shampyon says above:
As Shampyon says above:
As Shampyon says above:
None of your drivel applies in the least. She’s going to lose.
I have seen men do this to women in airports and on public transit.
Everyone knows there is no difference between the laws that apply to a sitting president of the United States and a Congressional Representative, amirite.
(leave the super bloom alone)
You are confusing two totally different legal theories.
Not following your argument at all.
Unless you have information refuting the claimant’s ancestors owned slaves and plantations, the journalist in fact reported the truth. No quotes, no end around. The Truth.
The press reporting the truth somehow not being a 1A right then?
Ignoring altogether that the litigant here claims to be proud of his confederate past. Slave Ownership being a prominent part of that confederate past.