Explaining the Full Story of SLAPPs From Microsoft Staff
For every action there is a reaction, for every attack there will be proportionate consequences/proportional punishment
Transparency is an enemy of people who do bad things, whereas secrecy typically helps shelter people who act badly and prefer people not to know what's going on (or have the wrong idea of what's going on).
This simple observation means that in order to combat bad people with a sinister agenda one can simple lay out the facts, even in 'crude' (unedited or barely edited) and complete form, then let people judge based on the raw material.
This has been done by many sites before, it is not some pioneering thing. Some people dubbed this 'radical' transparency as if there is something obscene about working in the open.
Generally speaking, the more material becomes available, the more damning it becomes for bad people. For one thing, having to deny or dispute a lot of material can be infeasible and keeping the story straight (consistecy) gets harder. There is a greater chance of lies being told and then caught along the way. For instance, suppose there is conniving and evidence of it. The longer that goes on, the more evidence of it will become available.
Microsoft is playing with fire. Key people in the company are playing with fire. They clearly underestimated our resources and now they scramble to make something out of nothing. What they do in the interim is self-harming because the longer it goes on for, the more we will have to publish. That's not even accounting for time and costs. It's just about reputation.
Suppose you strangle women and spend time in prison as a Microsoft employee. What would be gained by harassing a person who merely pointed that out? What are the risks associated with efforts to censor, or worse, look for 'revenge'?
What compels sane people to pay bills just to destroy their reputation even more? Well, maybe they're not sane, or they simply cannot think clearly. It never worked for the EPO and it won't work for them, either.
The sunk cost fallacy means something like "well, I have already come this far!"
For people who do bad things to step away isn't easy as long as they maintain some false belief that somehow, someday, things will turn around. What then happens is, they spend over a year wasting a lot of money, and then for several years to come they just face a public embarrassment, as more people can see what they did.
Sane people tend to be good people. They have a sense of humility. Bad people do not follow logic. They react to good people negatively (or sexually abuse woman who are happy, trying to make them feel bad). They are fuelled by bad instincts and typically try to drag people down to their own level. Their own misery may even lead them to physical assault on other people, including vulnerable women or wives of people they don't like.
British law is very clear about those matters, but doing law is not cheap and it is not fast either. We filed lawsuits last year [1, 2] and we hope to have an outcome by the end of this year. The world deserves to know; it takes patience, waiting, but then the world will see what happened. █