Techrights Has Dealt With More Potent SLAPPs Than Violent Microsofters Begging to Hide What They Did to Women
Related: Before Trying Censorship by Extortion the Serial Strangler From Microsoft Literally Begged Us to Delete Pages | Brett Wilson LLP [Repeatedly] Does Not Deny Microsoft or Another "Third Party" Secretly Funds the SLAPPs Against Techrights, Bankrolling Despicable People Who Deserve Criticism
Hiding the evidence by extorting authors? No, thanks.
OVER the years I became accustomed to SLAPPs; they no longer bother me and they never scared me. If you publish more than 50,000 articles about like 1,000+ people and companies and only 1 in a thousand might complain about some sentence in the large lot, then what does this say about accuracy? Also, the nitpicking does not show any malicious falsehoods and often points out nothing that is actually wrong, maybe something that might hurt someone's feelings (there are also attempts to frame reporting of facts as a "privacy" issue).
SLAPPs are not so rare in today's world. The more you publish, even in Social Control Media or some lousy YouTube channel, the more nastygrams or SLAPPs you will get (received electronically or by post). The larger the audience, moreover, the higher the probability (incentive factor and cost thresholds).
I already have my little 'collection' of SLAPPs. Some came from companies. Sometimes I mention these and sometimes I do rebuttals or lengthy series about them. Any SLAPP can become a story; the longer or bigger the SLAPP, the more devastating it can become to the aggressor. It's like shooting one's own toes, hoping that a new toe will magically grow.
SLAPPs typically come from Americans who lack legal standing unless they find some unscrupulous "gun for hire" in London; days ago I mentioned my complaint [1, 2] and report about one with an exceptionally confrontational tone and ridiculous trick questions (loaded statements trying to feed me statements to implicitly/tacitly endorse), working for serial harassers and defamers who either boast about breaking into devices or even resort to strangling women... welcome to the world of Microsoft, they feel like they're above the law.
We've already spent almost two decades dealing with companies 100,000 bigger than this boutique "guns for hire" shop; we're not going to be lured into "E-mail duels", baiting, and pretentious intimidation rhetoric. They're not my boss and they should be deeply ashamed of their conduct, which their financial misery might help explain. There's simply no point communicating with people who behave this way, more so in a straightforward case of SLAPP after strangulation of women, then feeble efforts at "reputation laundering" (or "management" as they like to call it).
This entire thing could already end a year ago, but the lawyers profit from prolonging things. They resort to - more so when they repeatedly fail - rather inappropriate know-it-all attitude, lecturing the other side like it's dumb and deprived of any rights, including due process, and then trying to feed words into the other side's mouth using manipulative language, which makes any rational debate insincere and unfruitful.
We cannot debate such matters with people who continue to think (or not!) and insist on fronting for violent men who attack women. Those people are easily triggered by any legitimate point of fact/criticism and then start barking a lot, not biting per se (being loud and being dangerous is not the same thing). █