• ”You all can kiss my Vagina of my soul!”
  1. The site will be going down for maintenance on February 24th for the XenForo 2 upgrade. Read more. (Update Feb-13)

Horrorcow Jonathan Yaniv / Jessica Yaniv / @trustednerd / trustednerd.com / JY Knows It / JY British ColumbiaRacist pedo tranny; vexatious litigant from British Columbia; protected by big tech; #waxmyballs

Discussion in 'Lolcows' started by trannyfucker, Nov 9, 2018.

Forum Guidelines

Lolcows are people and groups whose eccentric or foolish behavior can be "milked" for amusement and laughs. They are not countries, political figures, celebrities, your highschool bully, or some random YouTuber who doesn't involve himself in drama.

  • Be civil.

    Don't get angry over Lolcows. If you need to tell people you're better than someone, you're probably not.

  • Hide your powerlevel.

    Avoid revealing intimate, embarrassing details about yourself. This is not your blog and we are not an asylum.

  • Don't backseat moderate.

    You are not a moderator. You do not decide if a thread is to remain open or not. You do not decide if someone is a lolcow or not.

  • Don't white knight.

    Don't turn threads into an intervention. If you want to help, contact them privately. True lolcows reject advice.

  • Do not create topics about forum members.

    If you believe someone discovered by their account on the forum deserves a thread, ask staff first.

  • No trolling plans.

    We are not an autistic Illuminati. If you embarrass yourself or the forum trying to troll, we will ridicule you.

  • Topic titles should contain aliases.

    Keep thread titles as brief as possible and use all their different usernames.

  • Archive everything.

    Use archival tools to preserve content forever. Upload directly to posts where applicable.

  1. Once mainstream twitter and reddit learn about this story and the lengths companies went to bury it, things definitely won't look good for the transgender community. It will be fun to watch how prominent TRAs will deal with this one. Right now, they're content to keep quiet and not bring any attention to this story. However, once this lawsuit goes forward it will be impossible to ignore. Suddenly, those pesky "TERFs" were right about perverts and predators abusing the unrestricted transgender ideology in order to have easier access to women and children. Even the most die-hard SJWs become appalled whenever they learn of this story and read Jonathan Yaniv's disgusting texts and see his gross photos.
     
    • Optimistic Optimistic x 10
    • 🤔 Thunkful x 2
    • Agree Agree x 1
    kiwifarms.net
  2. Also, some hotshot Wall Street dude called Twitter the Harvey Weinstein of social media and their stock price tumbled 12% because of that. She may not win her case, but Twitter is having a PR problem. Troons can screech all the want, but does Twitter want to continue losing money? Will advertisers continue to use Twitter to promote their products?

    Source: https://variety.com/2018/digital/news/twitter-stock-harvey-weinstein-social-media-1203094020/
     
    • Informative Informative x 8
    • Like Like x 3
    kiwifarms.net
  3. Having a site that caters to nobody but troons and where you can expect to get immediately permabanned for calling a man a man isn't really going to be all that appealing to the 99.99% of the rest of the population.
     
    • Agree Agree x 19
    AnOminous

    AnOminous sittin in the fabled catbird seat
    True & Honest Fan Retired Staff

    kiwifarms.net
  4. TLDR: the complaint is way more focused on getting everything into the public record than stating actionable claims; it argues that the Twitter TOS is a contract and that it shouldn't be allowed to ban people without a reason (which it can currently do). Too tired to finish reading now, but I'll try to give a better overview tomorrow.
     
    • Informative Informative x 8
    • Agree Agree x 2
    kiwifarms.net
  5. She's made a video about it:

     
    • Informative Informative x 7
    • Like Like x 2
    theshep

    True & Honest Fan

    kiwifarms.net
  6. She'll lose the slapsuit but Yaniv won't be able to evade public record. Did Murphy just invent lawdoxing?
     
    • 🤔 Thunkful x 17
    • Like Like x 10
    • Winner Winner x 5
    • Feels Feels x 2
    Cryin RN

    True & Honest Fan

    kiwifarms.net
  7. Yeah but that analyst was talking about twitter not being socially conscious enough, not liberal and intersectional enough. The same media that would parrot that is not going to get involved in a similar way if it might be considered 'problematic' by being anti-trans... even if it's Yaniv. Because if you start deciding that someone's professed self-identification as a woman isn't enough by itself, where does it end? In reality?
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
    Blue Jerkop

    True & Honest Fan

    kiwifarms.net
  8. upload_2019-2-11_22-42-44.png

    :story:
     
    • Like Like x 16
    • Winner Winner x 9
    • Informative Informative x 7
    kiwifarms.net
  9. There are three causes of action. The first is breach of contract. This is treating the Terms of Service and other associated arglebargle as a binding contract, which it more or less is. Your presence on the platform is the consideration you give in return for the promises of Twitter to do what they're doing.

    I don't think this is strong since as with most such platforms, they reserve the right to kick you off for a broad range of behaviors more or less up to them. I don't really see a precedent that an ISP is generally liable for kicking you off a free service.

    The second is promissory estoppel, a more elusive cause of action, and is based on the general fact that Twitter has, since its existence, held itself out as some kind of free speech platform welcoming all and that short of illegal behavior like promoting terrorism or very limited kinds of hate speech, you can expect to be able to say what you want.

    As a result of this promise, people have devoted a lot of spare time to Twitter pursuits, and yet, that promise is complete bullshit. They got in this monopolistic position on false pretenses by lying to people, and it's actually a platform that is pushing a very specific agenda, and if you are not aboard the troon train and willing to pretend men are women, you're not welcome.

    Again, I don't think much of this from a legal perspective. I don't see it succeeding. However, Twitter looks like shit if they make the argument in their defense that they were basically lying but it's okay to lie, and yes, they really are a one opinion only allowed forum, not a free speech platform, and if you are a conservative, get off.

    Their defense, and it's legally sound, is they're basically a pack of liars, their whole premise for existing is bullshit, they have an agenda and they're pushing it, and they're legally entitled to do that. Don't like it? Leave.

    Their defense is to tell a good chunk of their userbase to fuck off and go somewhere else.

    The third and actually most interesting cause of action from a legal perspective, and the one I think is most likely to survive a motion to dismiss is this:

    Violation of Unfair Competition Law – Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, et seq.

    Now there's a mouth full. What exactly is that, you might ask.

    Well, Dhillon is happy to say:

    "Under the Unfair Competition Law (UCL), “[a]ny person who engages, has engaged, or proposes to engage in unfair competition may be enjoined in any court of competent jurisdiction.” Civ. Code § 17203. Unfair competition is defined as “any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice and unfair, deceptive, untrue or misleading advertising.” Civ. Code § 17200.

    Advertising is nearly any public statement a company makes encouraging people to use their product, either on its own merits or as compared to some available competitor.

    Twitter routinely makes public statements of this sort and has for years:

    “1. Twitter stands for freedom of expression for everyone.
    2. We do not take sides. We show sides. Every side.
    3. We treat everyone equally: the same Twitter Rules apply to all.
    4. You have the right to express yourself on Twitter if you adhere to these rules.”

    This statement is intended to get people to use Twitter, that is, to become their customers. This is advertising.

    It is also, as we all know, an outright fucking lie.

    Quite often, unfair competition/false advertising claims like this are pursued by competitors who allege that their customers have been poached by false advertising and they're entitled to compensation for lost profits and injunctive relief prohibiting future such claims.

    However, in this case the plaintiff is claiming to be a deceived customer who relied upon their false advertising in order to become a customer and has thereby lost something of value, essentially treating the statute as a consumer fraud statute. Dhillon appears to believe California allows this and makes apt looking arguments in favor of that view.

    Usually, you lead with your strongest claim and end with the flimsier ones. In this case, Dhillon has led with the headline getting claims, despite the fact that (IMO) they do not seem likely to succeed, while the oddball final claim is the one that seems like it might actually have a shot.
     
    • Informative Informative x 49
    • Like Like x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
    AnOminous

    AnOminous sittin in the fabled catbird seat
    True & Honest Fan Retired Staff

    kiwifarms.net
  10. Does the fact that the deadnaming rule was added sneakily without notifying users not help her? Since that was the reason for her ban, and she wasn't given an opportunity to consent to the ToS after the change was made.
     
    • 🤔 Thunkful x 2
    kiwifarms.net
  11. "Our Services evolve constantly. As such, the Services may change from time to time, at our discretion. We may stop (permanently or temporarily) providing the Services or any features within the Services to you or to users generally. We also retain the right to create limits on use and storage at our sole discretion at any time. We may also remove or refuse to distribute any Content on the Services, suspend or terminate users, and reclaim usernames without liability to you."
     
    • Informative Informative x 11
    AnOminous

    AnOminous sittin in the fabled catbird seat
    True & Honest Fan Retired Staff

    kiwifarms.net
  12. Just wanna say, thanks for the law analyses, this one and the other ones you made, really enlightening to read what you write.

    This whole debacle is going to be interesting.

    I find it weird the platforms protect these weirdos. The "power" they haveto publicly smear you is weird. All that PC shit is weird. Why people don't bring them down a notch, slapping the dumb out of them.

    Doesn't this contradict the 30 day warning clause Murphy mentions?
     
    • Agree Agree x 6
    • Like Like x 1
    August16

    August16 Quebexpert (at popular request)

    kiwifarms.net
  13. That is is what I expect Twitter cower behind if the judge and jury are in a crappy mood as an escape hatch, but considering how they wipe their own ass with every other aspect of what they wrote down as policy when it suits them, it might not work, but only if Murphy can present an airtight case Twitter moves the goalposts at will on a provably discriminatory basis.

    Of course, the hard part is to prove the "discriminatory" part, and I assume Murphy is pursuing this legally in order to force Twitter to either perjure themselves and get caught or force them to somehow prove they didn't fuck her over in blatant favor of a vexatious creep.
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
    GethN7

    GethN7 EVIL HITLER BITCH
    Verified True & Honest Fan

    kiwifarms.net
  14. Yes, but it's already in the Terms of Service. I'd bet they simply argue they already under the existing agreement had the right to terminate services for any reason or no reason, and didn't add that within the last 30 days.

    They also specifically say the "agreement" between them and the users includes the rules and other related information, though, and that's what actually changed.

    There isn't a discrimination cause of action, as such.
     
    • Informative Informative x 2
    AnOminous

    AnOminous sittin in the fabled catbird seat
    True & Honest Fan Retired Staff

    kiwifarms.net
  15. The lawsuit said a fair bit about those two sections. They argue that those sections are "procedurally and substantively unconscionable". Procedurally unconscionable because "they were inserted unilaterally by Twitter ... without any opportunity for individual users to negotiate them ... [on] May 17, 2012 and ... January 27, 2016"; substantively unconscionable because "they are unreasonably favorable to the more powerful party and unfairly one-sided ... [they] contravene the public interest or public policy, attempt to alter in an impermissible manner fundamental duties otherwise imposed by the law, seek to negate the reasonable expectations of the nondrafting party, and impose unreasonably and unexpectedly harsh terms having to do with . . . central aspects of the transaction."

    They also point out that, "Twitter employees could, using these provisions, engage in active content monitoring and threaten to shut down any account at any time for posting something an employee disliked. Twitter employees could ban accounts for the most petty and self-interested of reasons ... Such terms are so one-sided and oppressive that they shock the conscience. Twitter could ban users for the most arbitrary, discriminatory and unlawful of reasons, including outright discrimination based on race and gender."

    Frankly I doubt that this particular argument will hold up, but they did do a fair bit of work trying to argue it.
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
    • Informative Informative x 2
    kiwifarms.net
  16. It's always an uphill battle to fight TOS because as contracts of adhesion they're written to fuck you at every turn and if you don't like it you can take a hike.
     
    • Agree Agree x 4
    • 🤔 Thunkful x 1
    Blue Jerkop

    True & Honest Fan

    kiwifarms.net
  17. In theory, contracts of adhesion are supposed to be interpreted where ambiguous in favor of the party who did not draft them, since the other party is presumed to be able to protect their own interests explicitly.

    In actual practice, not so much.
     
    • Informative Informative x 6
    • Agree Agree x 2
    AnOminous

    AnOminous sittin in the fabled catbird seat
    True & Honest Fan Retired Staff

    kiwifarms.net
  18. I'm quite surprised that Twitter doesn't have a mandatory arbitration clause for general users, only for developers and 'enhanced features' users.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
    kiwifarms.net
  19. Can't they just argue that she's not a customer because they provide a free service? Or does the law extend to non-paying users as well?
     
    • Optimistic Optimistic x 1
    kiwifarms.net
  20. In practice, there's a very high likelihood that the court will say "you don't think these terms of service are fair to users? okay, just don't use the service".

    Murphy's lawsuit tries to make the case that Twitter has created a public "town square"... both by design, and in effect. They've oft advertised that they are a platform for "free speech" and that they don't censor or ban users based on political viewpoints, advertising that they are trying to create that type of "town square". They also claim that Twitter has become so universal as a social networking platform - especially, a means of communication between public figures and the common people - that it's almost necessary to have Twitter in order to communicate with your elected officials or to function as a journalist or public figure. This, they believe, makes Twitter a "town square" in effect. The argument is that censorship in a "town square" such as Twitter has such a chilling effect on public discourse that it should be interpreted as a violation of the First Amendment.

    This is pretty interesting because what they're trying to say is that Twitter has a duty to behave as though it was overseeing a public space, rather than a privately-owned space where Twitter can make up any rules that it wants. In practice, though, I suspect there's still a high likelihood that the court would just shrug that off and say, no, Twitter is a privately-owned service, and if you don't like it you don't have to use it.
     
    • 🤔 Thunkful x 8
    • Informative Informative x 3
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
    kiwifarms.net
  • About Us

    The Kiwi Farms is about eccentric individuals and communities on the Internet. These people are commonly referred to as Lolcows and are each distinct thanks to their erratic public behavior. Spectators are encouraged to join discussion. The wealth of opinions and knowledge shared by users is what has enabled this peculiar fringe community to thrive despite the incredible adversity and contention brought by those we discuss.

    We do not place intrusive ads, host malware, sell data, or run crypto miners with your browser. If you experience these things, you have a virus. If your malware system says otherwise, it is faulty.

  • Supporting the Forum

    BTC: 1LXpv9FUiazGB2LVyS44cTTEQFc8CBgPYi

    BTC+SW: bc1qwv5fzv9u6arksw6ytf79gfvce078vprtc0m55s

    ETH: 0xc1071c60ae27c8cc3c834e11289205f8f9c78ca5

    LTC: LNjmyhxThrTMY4izBdcdWqvW287LmCB6bg

    XMR: 438fUMciiahbYemDyww6afT1atgqK3tSTX25SEmYknpmenTR6wvXDMeco1ThX2E8gBQgm9eKd1KAtEQvKzNMFrmjJJpiino

Copyright © 2016 Lolcow LLC
This website may contain offensive or adult content.
Discontinue browsing if it is illegal or against your wishes to see such material.
All content belongs to their respective authors and does not represent Lolcow LLC.
We have not been served any secret court orders and are not under any gag orders.