Terrorist Attack Victims Seek to Restart Lawsuit Against Facebook After Zuckerberg Testimony

By | April 17, 2018

  • April 17, 2018 at 1:23 pm
    Sherry says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 2
    Thumb down 1

    This argument may or may not be valid. But this seems to play into the spirit of “double jeopardy”. You can’t keep accusing someone over and over until you get the response you want. One chance to make your case.

    • April 18, 2018 at 9:04 am
      Rosenblatt says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 1
      Thumb down 0

      Although I agree with your theory that you shouldn’t be able to keep accusing someone over and over until you get the response you want, double jeopardy only applies to criminal cases and not for any civil proceedings.

  • April 17, 2018 at 2:38 pm
    SacFlood says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 3
    Thumb down 8

    Disagree. Although I’m not on Israel’s side here, neither am I on Zuckerberg’s side. Since he stole Facebook from the Vinklevoss twins, and has now essentially conspired with the Trump campaign to allow Russian bots to have influenced voters’ opinions and votes, and has contradicted himself in this court case versus what he said under oath to Congress, he deserves to pay of his ill-gotten gains in penalties. Today I heard a poll stating that 12% of Americans trust Facebook with their data. Make him leave, and not influence more elections.

    • April 18, 2018 at 4:59 pm
      helpingout says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 1
      Thumb down 0

      Hello Agent,
      I never understand why you constantly use this when this has been talked about multiple times on IJ how it is completely legal to construct a team of experts who know their industry. When they collected data on consumers the consumer had to approve and acknowledge the fact that their data was being collected by the campaign. The screen you clicked on would not let those move forward before approving or denying the request. Some people approved and others denied the service.
      CA used has come out to say they have used illegal means to win elections and the way that the most recent data was collected was illegal unlike Obama’s completely legal approach. They bought the data and lied about keeping the data within their company as well. How is it similar?

Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *