So let me see if I got this right

Twitter lawsuit has 1 possible outcome:

@jack hands over the algorithm & our guys get full oversight of any future algo changes.

I don't see how Twitter becoming a "content creator" would help with the plan, and although I'm no lawfag, I suspect Trump's page being a public forum according to the precedent ruling, would prevent that from happening.

And since Twitter obv won't agree to pay out (since that will trigger a never-ending run on lawsuits until they got nothing left), or agree to dox any user (which imo was never the lawsuit's intent), the outcome of the lawsuit is as good as predetermined.

So it looks like [@Jack] will be our b*tch right in time for DECLAS & unsealing indictments.

Well played boss!

>>5767953

Yeah, the libertarian in me likewise has to occasionally take a back seat these days, and I'm not exactly comfortable there. But agree that in the short term there's no less invasive means to the ends we all seek.

Perhaps the way to make this work in the short run without being stuck with potentially tyrannical artifacts, is by utilizing leverage. Perhaps that's where Snowden came in, and now @Jack will have to voluntarily settle for oversight, knowing that it's best not to tempt Q to show him what's behind door number 2.

>>5768037

That makes sense. I guess that's how they were hoping to bypass any challenges if it came to that. Still, although this definition will probably hold for now in NZ, I doubt that it'll hold in the US considering the precedent ruling re Trump's page. And if the US forces Twitter to adopt IBOR, perhaps that will prevent them from classifying as publishers WW.