

You’re both wrong here. Stop, or you both get a vacation from this community.
You’re both wrong here. Stop, or you both get a vacation from this community.
You’re both wrong here. Stop, or you both get a vacation from this community.
“I never consent to searches”
“I don’t answer questions. Am I detained, or am I free to leave?”
I was the one that submitted the ban, after a number of reports. On the face of it (I am at work, so don’t always have time to deep dive), The reports did seem to align with trolling.
I had/have no idea what’s going on withe the Jordan Lund thing.
My gut says he’s going to use the ethics in government act as an excuse to dump.
Oi
Crossover:
1 with 3
2 with 6
Not as much as you’d think.
Parent bullet point is the user. Child bullet points are communities they run/ran
I’m another mod of the community. Admiral didn’t let me know they were doing this.
I still 100% support their actions regardless.
If it’s a bug, wow. Almost 250 years, and they can’t fix it?
Also, judges are there to make sure both sides play by the rules.
It’s actually the conclusion of 2 things:
If both hold true, then logically, a jury can make a decision against legal precedent, without fear of repercussion - unless they are paid/coerced to come to that conclusion, and the defendant - once cleared by by a jury - cannot be tried again.
This means that legally, a jury can say GTFO to jury instructions set by judges.
Jury nullification is an important logical conclusion of American jurist rules. This post will stay up.
Pastime*
All you rich people who think you can break any law you want, let this be a warning roadmap
CTV changed the title after this was posted. This was the original title.
This comment was reported.
I get the anger, and there’s no direct threat of violence, so I’m leaving it up.
After reviewing the actual legal filing, you’re correct. I somehow missed that.
All persons (corporate or individual) in the United States who participated in an Affiliate Program with a United States online merchant and had affiliate attribution redirected to Paypal as a result of the Honey browser extension.
Thanks for the clarification.
The YouTubers can only sue for actual damages THEY realized.
As the class is for content creators that partnered with Honey, it can only be for the affiliate links.
Users will need to sue separately, either individually or as a different class. My money is on them having a forced arbitration clause, so direct lawsuit will most likely be out of the question.
I hope it doesn’t.
Please, make this. I have too many communities, or I would