05-20-2022, 10:37 AM
I'm gonna try to break this down.
First of all, working on the Unix kernel is totally irrelevant to using Twitter search APIs, as are writing mainframe software or an e-mail reader. Any person who knows how to code but otherwise has no formal computer science education can use the APIs.
The witness seems to be asserting that:
(1) One or more defamatory articles about Amber appeared in the press;
(2) Some number of tweets appeared that directly referenced those articles;
(3) Millions of people posted hashtags critical of Amber or supportive of Johnny.
Therefore, the millions of people who posted the hashtags must have read those articles.
I didn't catch whether it was actually millions of people posting the hashtags or some lesser number of people spamming Twitter with the hashtags to boost them. First of all, how many people are really invested enough in this case to bother? Secondly, most people on social media only read the headline of an article without reading the whole thing. The witness couldn't say where in the articles the alleged defamatory remarks appeared. The online press have a habit of burying dubious statements near the bottom of a long article, knowing most people won't read that far.
It seems most likely that a relatively small number of people are so emotionally invested in this issue that they spammed the hashtags to inflate their rankings.
But never mind all that. To prove that Johnny defamed Amber, they have to show defamatory statements made by Johnny himself. They also have to show that Johnny's statements harmed Amber in some way, such as causing lost income or damaging her reputation.
First of all, working on the Unix kernel is totally irrelevant to using Twitter search APIs, as are writing mainframe software or an e-mail reader. Any person who knows how to code but otherwise has no formal computer science education can use the APIs.
The witness seems to be asserting that:
(1) One or more defamatory articles about Amber appeared in the press;
(2) Some number of tweets appeared that directly referenced those articles;
(3) Millions of people posted hashtags critical of Amber or supportive of Johnny.
Therefore, the millions of people who posted the hashtags must have read those articles.
I didn't catch whether it was actually millions of people posting the hashtags or some lesser number of people spamming Twitter with the hashtags to boost them. First of all, how many people are really invested enough in this case to bother? Secondly, most people on social media only read the headline of an article without reading the whole thing. The witness couldn't say where in the articles the alleged defamatory remarks appeared. The online press have a habit of burying dubious statements near the bottom of a long article, knowing most people won't read that far.
It seems most likely that a relatively small number of people are so emotionally invested in this issue that they spammed the hashtags to inflate their rankings.
But never mind all that. To prove that Johnny defamed Amber, they have to show defamatory statements made by Johnny himself. They also have to show that Johnny's statements harmed Amber in some way, such as causing lost income or damaging her reputation.
