RE: SPS Proposal - Class Action Lawsuit against Facebook, Google & Twitter's Crypto Ad Ban
I'll add a little: I was sceptical when I first interviewed @apshamilton about this. I was doing that a blogger/journalist over a year ago. As I looked at it further I became involved and now I'm part of the team.
Andrew really has sued and won against the Australian Government (which if we're talking about GDP vs combined turnover or manpower or assets especially a whole lot of land) is bigger than Facebook, Google and Twitter combined.
It's worth repeating here: this isn't about funding the case entirely from Steem, but if we receive more of the balance of our funding from ideologically aligned sources (which believe Web 3.0 should be taking over from Web 2.0) that gives us vastly improved bargaining power with established litigation funding firms.
Just so people here know: litigation funding is an established asset class rather like venture capital for law suits. I have more experience dealing with tech VC's and am coming up to speed now with how litigation funding works and it is somewhat similar.
thank you for the clarification, my fear is simply that it would explode in the reverse face as megacorp tends to have as good as unlimited resources and has been weaving and sailing in, out , over , under and between the narrow cracks of law for decades, they got a perma-team im sure of that scanning every single article every single day for minute changes lol. I dont know about Australia but if you were to take them on in Europe they'd probably lash back with stuff like 'the right to be forgotten' (something they can do, but this blockchain thing can't lol ... its not always euhm ... for instance when Apple, i mean when Ireland said "we are okay with the tax-situation" the EU still said NO (as if it was their decision but since its the union they can sue whatever happens in it and they are like the ultimate overlord protectorate ... plus both they and the TEK-5 will stop at nothing to keep the upperhand ... it's a dangerous thin line and i think lobbying would be better than an outright attack, if its by government demand then its not 'your' fault okay, that doesnt put STEEM in the visor of the TEK-5 snipers, they will HAVE to (after several more years of procedure as they have this save-face thing where they can simply agree on day 1) plus lobbying is less enmity, an outright attack is nice and flashy media, especially for the lawyers (no offense but you DO get free advertising when you attack a mastodont with a few 'small' people ... its like lawyer who explicitly choose the defend the mass-murderers in public , thats just an added benefit , no need to discuss the morel-ethics of it all lol) I would prefer lobbying , in conjunction with entities (like the pirateparty here) who are established and 'on the same side' politically AND certainly wont mind the media-attentio going up against a common enemy of their voters , lol. It's 2019 after all, lobbying is the new law