Comment on Zuckerberg’s 2012 email dubbed “smoking gun” at Meta monopoly trial
whereisk@lemmy.world 3 days agoYes. The argument is, raise the burden of proof: you are proving what my intent was, and what actions I took, but you should be proving negative market effects. Just because I said it, and I did it, doesn’t mean I succeeded. And if I didn’t there’s no reason to be broken up.
andallthat@lemmy.world 3 days ago
Thanks, I understand better now.
On related note, I wish I had know of the “just because I said it and I did it, didn’t mean I succeeded” line of defense when I was a kid
whereisk@lemmy.world 3 days ago
Haha! Yes, but not sure how effective it would have been. I think parenting counts intent way above outcomes.
captainlezbian@lemmy.world 3 days ago
"Attempted murder? What next? The Nobel prize in attempted physics?