• locuester@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    25 days ago

    If it was done in knowingly and in bad faith, no I would not. With this particular case, all I know is what’s in that article which doesn’t describe the situation in detail. The court case would provide the full picture.

    • GreyEyedGhost@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      25 days ago

      Who would be the bad faith actor here? Wiwynn? If they don’t have an order, that’s going to fall flat pretty fast. Seems like a pretty risky bet at $60 million. Twitter? Then it isn’t Wiwynn’s problem, Twitter can take care of their bill, and deal with their internal issues.

      • locuester@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        25 days ago

        I don’t know. Perhaps as part of the acquisition there were some terms regarding situations like this that are in dispute. Even more nuanced, perhaps Wiwynn knowingly took advantage of the acquisition communication issues to assert a level of standing orders that should have been reconsidered.

        Who knows, speculating doesn’t move the needle.

        • Jtotheb@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          25 days ago

          So stop speculating that the situation is “more nuanced” than the objective article title that paints a picture you don’t like.

          • kautau@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            25 days ago

            lol this is literally the same conversation happening elsewhere on the internet about Diddy. There’s a video of him abusing someone. “Stop speculating, we don’t know the whole story.” Speculation is claiming there’s anything beyond a video of him abusing someone. It’s wild how much people love their celebrities to the point of abandoning all logic to defend them.