What blows me away is when someone goes to court for defamation and they tell the court "of course everything said was a lie....who would be dumb enough to believe anything our broadcasters say" and yet they are still allowed to broadcast lies and half-truths with impunity. Even though they told the courts that NO ONE would be dumb enough to believe them. And then sit around and wonder why people on the internet all think they can get away with lying too. 🤦🤦♀️🤦♂️
People believe stuff on the internet because we lack the cognitive evolution as a species to handel the technology and are thus extremely vulnerable to propagation and blatant falsities. This is especially true for a certain aged demographic (boomers) whom struggle to recognize photoshopped or AI generated material, synthetic voices, scams, partisan propaganda, fake reviews, and algorithmic influence. The majority of Americans suffer from Dunning Kruger and biased cognition that also render them extremely gullible and naive. You for instance are extremely predictable thanks to a record of your activity. Your being influenced daily on every decision, belief, and thought you make. Most of us complain about journalism while watching our preferred medium with a partisan bias. Take Fox News for instance they’re technically NOT a news organization and are officially an Entertainment company. They have actually leveraged this multiple times to prevent lawsuits and tried agin when they lost nearly a billion dollars to Dominion for defamation. (I guess that fact alone negates the validity of your comment that they don’t get sued) They are only News to the vulnerable whom are less educated on the subject. We watch local news who’s owned by a small number of large media conglomerates like Nexstar and Sinclair with a partisan agenda then, we wonder why facts are either non existent or disseminated with an intentional twist to support a preferred narrative. Certainly media makes mistakes and they do broadcast untruths but most of us perceive news as being either factual or not based on our own bias and partisan influence further cultivated via internet propaganda. If your watching something like NewsMax, Fox News or MSNBC your literally requesting with wanting/willing stupιdity to be lied to. Regardless, If all FB posts were held accountable for lying or defamation the majority of people would be in trouble with their political posts that span far beyond the arena of criticism and opinion. Your likely guilty of it yourself.
Dude. There’s proof of him being horrible. He isn’t going to win this. There is just too much proof. He should’ve behaved better. He thought he could treat women terribly and get away with it. It’s free speech and he isn’t going to win. The women have already supported with lots of money on their go fund me pages.
They don’t. Who has done that? Which politician has blatantly lied about another in a manner that was stated as a fact and not an opinion, then proven to be false? (And was NOT sued)? They don’t. They EXPOSE each other because they’re all pretty corrupt sans a few good eggs. Other than that what they say is generally an opinion about how the other person sucks. Also- celebrities have even less rights around this topic. If you’re a public figure- you’re going to be talked about by most people.
I was sued for exposing a streamer for drinking with underage kids. Tried to say I slandered for telling the truth to his fans and employers IRL. It's an annoying process. Always be weary what u put online!
Me too! I got sued over warning the public about renting a bedroom from a woman who has untreated borderline personality disorder and she saw it and sued me. Problem is- she’s on gov’t assistance and no job, so no damages. Also, I didn’t lie. I didn’t use the diagnosis, I only described her behavior. I counter sued for bad faith damages. She lost, I won. 😅
This is actually _extremely_ common when it comes to dating and relationship content online. People will post one-sided perspectives of their relationship online, most commonly on tiktok, and the comments will go to down blasting the other partner. Question though: If someone posts something factually false about another person and then it gets a lot of traction with people believing it and spreading it, are the people who spread it liable or is it just the person who initially made the claims?
In most states, defamation requires that (1) the statement was made intentionally, (2) the statement was false, (3) the person either knew the statement was false or they had sufficient reason to believe the statement was false, (4) the statement caused damage to the victim. So, if a random person reads a one-sided perspective of a situation that turns out to be false that they then repeat to others? They only have the one-sided self-serving account to go off of, so they have no reason to believe it was false. They would probably be considered not liable.
@@OttoByOgraffey He does say to post questions, but he never says that he'll actually answer them. TH-camrs that answer questions in comments usually mention that in their videos.
I got sued once for libel. Unfortunately for this lunatic, everything I said was true. I countersued for bad faith (punitive damages) and won. And she lost. 😂
that would be sanctions not punitives damages, but u would win more money from sanctions. sanctions is when they abuse court system. punitive damages is malice instead of negligence when doing the crimes or negligence on a gross scale.
This should be very interesting to follow what happens. There is a big one that blew up out of the Idaho case where a TikToker out of Texas has defamed a professor declaring professor is the killer and she (the professor) has been battling it since. The TikToker is a nutcase who claims her "evidence" is "spiritual". Though realize this nonsense is very costly, I agree that these nutjobs do need a taste of consequences. TH-camr, Emily D. Baker has covered this extensively. She's a lawyer and seems most interested in where that ridiculous situation leads in the courts because it's so outrageous.
Is he? Have you read the claims made in that facebook group? The woman who "defamed" him might have been complaining about something entirely different.
The recent case that’s currently popular and far more interesting is the one with deranged TikTok / IP attorney Jeanette Braun. It involves multiple creators from multiple platforms, abuse of DMCA with numerous fraudulent copyright claims, mass flagging and removed of channels, even fraudulent calls to emergency services for frivolous wellness checks, insane slap lawsuits and hilarious cease and desist letters.
@@terripebsworth9623not to mention that multiple try to erroneously claim libel over comments that a presumed by nature to be a matter of opinion. Many people of failed at such litigation and even more have frivolous claims. One such claim just filed the other week.
Totally different issue. That woman has zero evidence except her delusions. These women have first hand experience and shared said experiences in a closed group. That nutty Idaho lady broadcasted her delusions on her PUBLIC TH-cam channel. Very very different. This guy in the lawsuit being talked about here has NO damages. You can’t sue over hurt feelings.
I checked out the rules for the group in my area. (The group is private but their rules are public.) One of them is "no libel, defamation or copyright infringement", along with a multi-paragraph warning about making sure you have evidence, posting at your own risk, that the group is not responsible for what you post, and that you may be sued for libel and defamation. Obviously you can't make people read and absorb these rules, but that warning is there and in clear language. It shouldn't be Facebook or the group's liability that these posts were made... only those of the people that allegedly demanded this guy. That said, libel is tricky to prove. In the US, the plaintiff needs to prove that the accusations are false based on a preponderance of the evidence. I personally prefer it that way -- the UK does it backwards and thus allows the elite to sue and bury stories that are embarrassing to them.
Someone can post anonymously on Facebook but the moderator of the group has to approve it. So obviously, a moderator knows who the person is. The man's lawyer can subpoena the moderators to find out who posted.
How do you post anonymously? I thought you had to have an account to post anything on social media. Also, I wonder. I think Mr. Lehto was talking about Section 230 protections, but if social media are moderating, doesn't that make them a publisher then, and liable for what they approved to be posted?
@@tezcanaslan2877 Oh, I thought those days were gone, that these temporary email and text services were pretty much all blacklisted now. The last time I tried to make a throwaway account to activate some kind of trial offer, it wouldn't work. The email and text were rejected. That was a couple of years ago.
Saying someone is a trillionaire wouldn't be harmful? I remember asking my Father why he didn't name his company after himself. He told me the more people who think you have money, the more people will ask you for some of it.
@@B_Bodziak i think you missed the intent, if a guy is dating some girl who hears he's hiding that he's rich then she could do one of two things, one is berate him for being so cheap on dates and the other is accuse him of all sorts of illegal things that never happened because she wants a settlement
I also disagree that saying someone is a trillionaire wouldn't be harmful. If the person is on government benefits with no job or other income, then people might think they are a fraud and even false report them for it. There was a time when someone working in a store I went to, tried to make me out to be rich after first having accidentally called me a 'bag lady' (I guess she thought that would fix it), and neither of those things were true. Now I can never know, when people treat me strangely, if it has anything to do with that, or if it's a coincidence.
Or any social media, just means they seek attention and validation. More likely to post some outrageous shit once they have contracted Mad Clout Disease.
From the sound of the title of the groups I am betting they are a place where women can talk about certain men who give off red flags in a way to warn others about them. I sounds like the kind of thing that was intended to keep others safe. I am betting now with him suing some of the members his ability to date is going to be much much harder these days.
If it was about keeping people safe, why aren't the groups called that? Why isn't it "Beware of these men", instead it's women throwing random guys pictures up asking for "tea" and then anyone can lie in the comments and say what they want. I was literally a victim of this myself.
Makes me wonder if he saw that episode and figured this could be his claim to fame. Like what if it turns out some of those anonymous 27 are actually alts created by him or his friends. 🤔 people are going to some real extremes for clout nowadays.
Once had someone post on Craigslist in a “rants and raves” section where we had some political debate going on. There was a small group of us with various views who tried to actually debate issues and a number of regulars who only knew how to parrot “party lines” without facts. Well one day one of those not in our “group” posted a slightly veiled threat towards the President (Which isn’t relevant). Several of us posted that he needs to be careful making such statements about the President as it could be construed as a threat and the SS (secret service) takes such things seriously. His response was quick and not well considered. He basically said let him remove all doubt about what he meant and that he meant that someone needs to get a rifle and put a bullet through his head (he used his name). Half a dozen of us responded that he needed to pull down that post immediately or he was likely to get a visit. He of course refused stating he was posting in an anonymous board and he would be fine. This was before most people know they’re not truly anonymous online. At least two posters (because I was there when they did it) contacted the SS ti report the incident. A couple of days later his posts in any topic ended (he had been a prolific poster). Weeks later someone asked where he’d gone and another responded with “maybe the black SUVs came and got him”. The OP posted his shortest post ever and it read simply: “They’re not black, they’re white”.
People have no problem claiming other people are pedophiles online and it appears to be just because the other person is from a different political party.
1) politicians are practically immune to suing over defamation because they’re public figures. So the bar is EXTRA high for them. You have to straight up SAY that they had sex with a child, as a fact. You can’t just insinuate it like politicians do to each other. So, you must SAY it outright AND you have to KNOW that it’s a lie and say it anyway. So if you actually believe that Hillary diddles kids- then you can’t be sued. And the person suing has to I know it was a lie and said it anyway. Good luck proving THAT.
There is no evidence anywhere that this man actually suffered job loss or any sort of financial hardship because of the opinions posted by these women. He is simply angry that women are warning other women about him and his days of free and irresponsible sex are over.
@@edevos3108, and you of course have evidence for these claims, yes? You can prove that he is just after 'free and irresponsible sex'? You can prove that these women are telling the truth and actually know this man? I would assume so, because if you didn't, that would make you a *colossal hypocrite*. I'm quite certain that you're not just angry that a man is pointing out the ridiculousness that took place on a social media page that is run by and for women to talk smack about men. Certainly not! Perish the thought!
@@edevos3108 You don’t know that there’s no evidence “anywhere “ of harm. That was not stated. Nobody reveals their hand before a trial like this and he’d be wise not to.
You’re being unrealistic. Today many do . I would too , particularly for jobs that involve interaction with customer, clients, patients and other employees. A lot of insight can be gained into peoples interactions with others by reading what they have themselves posted.
A media platform can be liable if they demonstrate a willful lack of action toward a company that shows a willful lack of action toward their users. It's a high bar, but it is possible where both have been informed of repeated violations without sufficient action or not fulfilling violated warnings.
No. In California you can file electronically if you know their personal email address or file the old fashioned way by going into court house and then have someone other than you serve the person you’re suing. If you do it then you throw your whole case out.
I rarely use social media anymore, only use it now and then to keep in touch with a few people that can't seem to keep the same phone number, one thing I never did was publicly post personal things, my opinions on people (unless they are famous/public figures then it's harder to be sued for talking about them), never even got into the showing meals fad that was going on for a while, I only publicly post my opinions on things going on, my opinions on how good/bad a movie I watched was, maybe about how my day went at work (never posting where I work or anything personal about the people I work with). Always treat posting to social media as if you were actually in public talking about the subject of your post. Is what you're posting something you'd feel comfortable talking about in public? If yes then post it, but be aware it could come back to bite you. If no, then don't post it and keep it to yourself.
My cousin dated a man that someone found her and said "oh I dated him too." She introduced my cousin into some kind of online club of women that had dated him that he embezzled their money, or stole from them to use for the next girl. My cousin has no money, he didn't do anything to her specifically, but the online club tried to get her to post that he did. Strange stuff. She dropped out of the club and got harassed enough where she finally told me "the tech person" about it.
So yeah similar situation. Girl I matched with did a court record lookup on me and found another person with the same name with an extensive criminal record. Then went to the group to say I had a criminal record and claimed I was lying about my age. I had to put in a lot of time and effort to get the post removed. Then of course I was later posted by a person asking about me and members would comment that they remember me as someone with a criminal history and lying about my age. So it stuck with some of the members. Thankfully it didn't affect my job, but it absolutely damaged my dating reputation. The good news: people will still date even the worst red flag offenders. But in my opinion, groups like these are not a representation of freedom of speech, rather they are platform for libel. And for the record, there are guy groups popping up as well and THEY ARE NO BETTER
One of the few times(only) I have to challenge one of Steves comments( as a bad example). Falsely stating "steve is a trillionaire" could be extremely damaging to him with provable costs. Such a claim could see large numbers of requests for financial support( with associated administration costs). The claim could make Steve( as a hypothetical example) a KNR(Kidnap and Ransom) risk requiring the hiring of body guards. The claim could destroy "Steves"freedom of movement. To further emphasize the potential damage: Lottery winners, in states where their names have to be publicized, have been killed because of their winnings.
My brother tells everyone I’m loaded and yeah…it’s caused a ton of problems…including having my home broken into on a number of occasions and a huge amount of my valuables including my wedding ring being stolen…and I’m far from loaded…lol…I’m just frugal and live within my means and fix my own things so I don’t have to pay a fortune to have something like a nicer looking vehicle…but to junkies, I appear well off…I live in a 45 year old mobile home that I own and own my vehicles and that’s considered wealth to a bunch homeless junkies….my brother is a junkie that still lives with our parents and sells drugs out of their basement so…yeah…it’s very damaging
I agree with your assessment. A certain orange man making false statements has also caused a large number of people to attack judges and threaten their lives for doing their jobs. Yet that man still isn't in pretrial detention.
Steve. if meta controls what is posted, say, about the climate, results of national group choices, about the 'molly cyrus' etc.... it would appear that they ARE responsible for ANY posting. if they were only a platform with no controls, then they should enjoy the the same lack of responsibility as the brick layers who paved the town hall.
Yea well those threats stay online forever and if something happens to someone you knew and you were a part of it that old threatening post will be used against you. All of the internet is backed up in San Francisco. For the feds.
Reminds me of a man who had his face up on actual giant billboards that some women had paid to be up there. Saying things he didn't do and that he even had AIDS. This was long time ago but still.
Funny this came up. Last week My SIL sent me a picture she saw on one of those pages asking me if I knew the guy and the comments were vicious. Nothing but attacking his looks and what he "must be like" it just seems like a place for single moms to trash men. Funny thing is the man is a manager where I work and I don't know him well but what I know about him is completely opposite of what these people were saying ... "He looks homeless" well he has a paid off 1/3 million dollar home on a lake.... "He looks like a rapist" what does a rapist look like? I mean it was just horrible.
It's best to keep off of social media when you're emotionally overwhelmed in any way. Reddit is full of very one sided stories that could get the authors into tons of trouble.
first thing that comes to mind since meta was mentioned, what's up with the, " fact checkers police"? fb has gone on and on with their ," fact checking" to make it appear that the almighty fb has checked everything out. kinda sounds like they're talking out of both sides of their mouths if stuff gets posted that isn't true.
"Step right up folks ride the social media rollercoaster, it's got loops, it's got twists and turns, it's got..." "Mister, I want my money back, that wasn't fun at all." "Sorry kid, you pays your money you takes your chances, now get outta here kid, ya bother me. Step right up folks..."
If it's "over $75k" he's made it federal then? Diversity of jurisdiction. How does he even know all defendants are diverse without discovery anyhow? Guessing he's pro se and about to lose and have them write 100x as much negative about him after, sadly.😢😅
I dunno, I would think telling people you are a trillionaire would definitely hurt you. Lots of people calling to borrow money, people tryna rob you, not knowing whether someone whose dating you is genuinely interested or just a gold digger, etc, etc
Right? If this was a woman making the same claim, shew buddy, heads would be on pikes already. Equal rights, equal lefts, best of luck to the dude, IF he has a case, if that is quantifiable.
Didn't Derrick Jaxn blow the gold digger term up and explain to women that that term was created by guys who are broke and can't afford to take out/ provide for women, or at least the league of women they wish they could get, and very bitter about it....or something along those lines?
@@KVixen My grandfather housekeeper "married" him when she was 60 and he was sick at 83 yo, took all from him and he suddenly died, than made-up a false will. Kitty, do you presume all gold diggers are only young airheads that also become damage goods in search for "a better life"? Some are just old hags. Clear? :)
I watch the TV show catfish and it amazes me the people that actually believe they’re in a relationship and are dating for sometimes years to someone that they have never talked to on the phone and never seen.
I think it's bad to catfish people in general. Ironically, if the perpetrator isn't taking money, it's otherwise a mutually beneficial relationship. Both parties enjoy a fantasy about a relationship which is probably better than a real one.
I watched a couple of those - I would have moved on the first time they pulled any of those excuses. Before the Internet I did have someone ( a younger women) I was corresponding (on a subject I taught) with that claimed they had a sudden "legal" issue and needed money. I told her to have her lawyer call mine and we would see if we could help - she replied that he was to busy but she could send a receipt. Never answered that number again - that number called for weeks.
@@B_Bodziak Ben is a one hundred dollar bill Steve hides on the set daily. My vague comment would be clear to the regulars that hunt for & try to be the 1st to comment on where’s Benjamin. Welcome to the fray, it ain’t always easy.
It's usually very difficult to get intentional infliction of emotional distress. Like extraordinarily difficult. It's not just like "they hurt my feelings." It's like "they basically tortured me."
Which is how it should be. Now, of course it’s a real thing, but you don’t want to lower the bar too much on these things, because then they can easily be abused. Easily.
@@TomJakobW I can barely tolerate the idea of libel. Somebody insults you and you can sue them even if it's obviously jokes to the people reading it, but some lawyers is able to twist it. It's crazy. It's also so horribly abused on a regular basis for political reasons. It's disgusting. It's often used to punish people well beyond any actual monetary harm a person could have actually suffered. They'll award somebody 100x their lifetime earning potential, which is obscene.
Though I don't make it a habit of talking untrue smack about people, all I can say is good luck getting anything out of me. I have no assets to take. I suspect that this guy might actually get somewhere with this. People really do get crazy irresponsible in what they say on Social Media.
@@gy5rffg5rf My state is 20 years for most debts. I don't have a bank account. I will never own a house and have no need for a car. My income is off-limits for everyone other than the tax man. People like me ( if I owed money at all ) are why people who sue need to research first. You could end up suing someone and never seeing that money again.
@@gy5rffg5rf oh, you mean like when they take 75 to 100% of your pay for support? Yeah, that happened to me. Caused so much damage that is one reason why I'm now collection proof and I will remain so for the rest of my life. I had that life experience and was lucky to get out of it with 0 owed.
According to the complaint, no. These groups are scary and I refuse to join them. He dated one woman. She figured she'd check on him and posted to the group, and a bunch of group members said they'd dated him. They said seriously bad things, and apparently it got back to his social circle and workplace.
@@stevec3526 On apps, they have certain outcomes. You might have noticed that many people (women too) say how horrible dating apps are. A select few stay on apps. So those statistics? Yeah, they're true. There's selective marketing, so men who aren't getting matched often keep subscriptions. Women more frequently cancel the subscriptions. Hence the statistics.
One of my coworkers.. single in her late 40’s, is on this sight all the time. I know for sure there were 2 guys she dated on it. She read me what people said about them 😳 I know one of the guys and I asked her to screenshot shot the conversation and send it to me… she said no way!! It’s highly monitored and she will get kicked out for it 😳 it’s so well hidden on facebook that I couldn’t find the site. I have know idea how she found it. 😳😳🤦♀️ We are in Nebraska
@@Rainbowssugar to think they know when a screenshot is taken 😳 A lot of technology I don’t understand and that is one. She told me I could hold my camera over it and take a picture, then they never know.
Good. That’s smart of them. It’s a private group and that’s how the info should stay. It’s like having the ladies over for drinks and gossiping. You can’t sue someone for what they said in a living room, that STAYS in a living room.
They can't know if you took a screenshot and shared it privately. Usually they find out you took a screenshot if you share it publicly on your profile or the info contained in it can lead back to you. If they never see it on the Internet they can't know you took it.
Yah section 230 went away on Facebook when they started editing what people see, and do on their platform so yah they can be used for every single thing now because they violated section 230
Another lesson I learned from Ken White (Popehat): don't charge headlong into filing a frivolous lawsuit if you have a unique or uncommon name. This dude does and oooooooo boy is it just gonna be a stain on his reputation for anyone who does a quick search.
It might have been an attempt to draw attention away from his then upcoming trial for tax fraud. He was convicted after drastically under-reporting income from selling "sweepstakes" kiosks for a company connected to the mob and claiming false donations for tax write-offs. He was convicted in the same courthouse where he filed his lawsuit.
Exactly. Because if true, or if the person honestly believes it to be true then they haven't committed defamation, by default defamation requires that the person know it's false.
I wondered too, so I found the complaint. According to him, he really dated one of those women. She basically said that and posted identifying information. He's after her for doxxing and a related charge. A ton of people in the group made up stories. I don't remember all of them, but he was called psycho, clingy, and they said he harassed one woman and ghosted another.
Based on the name and background info, I suspect the group is not about literally finding situations where women are dating the same guy in some kind of cheating situation. Sounds more likely that it is mocking the frequency with which different men commit the same faux pas.
No, it's about literally the same guy. Modern women all share the same guys. Apparently women on dating apps all only swipe right on the same 5% of guys and those guys are juggling 20, 30, 40 or more at a time while the other 95% get nothing. I'm not on dating apps so please don't shame me for being the messenger.
5:50 I think you're misunderstanding what these groups are. I've never heard of these particular groups either, but it sounds very much like these are groups where women warn each other about men who are extra creepy or abusive. So the purpose isn't to find a man who's cheating, it's to warn other women that a guy you dated turned out to be abusive so they can stay away. This is something women have always done long before the internet, and it's also exactly the sort of thing where a man would file a SLAPP-style lawsuit to shut them up even if every thing they claim about him is true. The type of man who would be talked about in such a group is also the type to lawyer up and try to intimidate these women into shutting up. I'm not saying that's what this particular situation is about, but that's my feeling coming away from hearing you describe what's going on.
You're right, in part. They're also to find cheaters. Unfortunately, their rules aren't designed to get to the truth at all. They're designed for maximum damage to anyone mentioned.
@@yesitschelleVetting has been away people check out potential dates for very long time. Overall, it works pretty well for sorting out creeps and abusers. Unfortunately, like most rule of thumb type systems, it's easy to abuse for someone without any integrity. Some people will stretch the truth so drastically that it turns into a lie, or some people will just flat out make stuff up, simply because the relationship didn't go the way they wanted it to. "He raised his voice at me" turns into "he was verbally abusive". "I caught him looking at another girl's butt" turns into "he was cheating on me". Or, again, they can just flat out make stuff up. And with pseudo-anonymous posters, it can be nearly impossible to tell one way or the other what is true, what is an emotionally fueled stretch, and what is just a flat out lie.
@@Alan-jk1yi When I first heard of them, that was my thought. Then I read an interview with someone who runs it. The interview in favor of the group. The theme was that men are bad and we'll warn you. The rules are absurd, like they go on and on about screenshots with zero mention of honesty. Group members and former group members say similar things, and they sound like the article with the interview. Like any man posted, they "find out" lots of terrible things.
@@yesitschelle I think most groups on the internet with negative purposes like this tend to get nasty very quickly because they tend to attract bitter and vengeful people (plus it's the internet, and the internet tends to bring out the worst in some people). It's like that with all things, not just dating. Groups or channels that post about abusive police interactions tend to be flooded with people saying "all cops are bastards", while groups or channels that focus on the dangerous but necessary cop interactions tend to attract people who take a great amount of joy in watching people be arrested or shot while yelling that they deserved it. Both sides devolve into nastiness quite easily because they're focusing on a negative aspect rather than a more balanced outlook, and therefore attract people more interested in those overly negative aspects. The classic echo chamber problem.
When people see that corporations can in court admit that everything they said was a lie and still not have repercussions that are actually more effective than just side-eyeing them. Then maybe people wouldn't be so certian they can spread lies without worry too. The courts by not holding public corporations accountable, since everything is public teaches people that lies have no consequences.
did 27 really lie about the same guy? what is the evidence that what they said is untrue? Unless it is clearly lies and not a different view points then it sounds like a SLAPP lawsuit.
That's correct, Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act Most people online now just give it the nickname "safe harbor" even though there is a different provision with that name
If a social media agency can fact check items that people post for supposedly misleading or false information, then they should be accountable for people who post slanderous information and allowing them to do so….
@@Calc_Ulator But they *claim* they are. Right? You get those warnings about "misinformation"? That's the supposed platform exercising some editorial control, which they're NOT supposed to be doing.
How do you fact check if a guy ghosts a woman? Lmfao. This is absurd. It’s not like they said he had herpes or raped them. They just said he was a jerk. Ya can’t Sue over that and you can’t fact check an OPINION. This is so dumb lol
@@GS-zc4sk There's a reason I won't join those groups. They say that sort of stuff. Any bad thing they can think of about a potential date, they'll say it.
I remember a site called "Don't Date Him, Girl" years ago and I think it's still around. Women can name the person, city and say whatever they want. At least that's what it used to be. True or not, you can imagine the stuff women say on there.
Lol you guys must be old people. Because burn pages were a thing in high school. Where they made a Facebook page, exposing everything. Txt, your house, exes, photo, everything to destroy your reputation😂😂😂
Even the vaunted VPNs tech Bros go on about aren't foolproof. It takes a damn sight more leg work and possibly a court order or two, almost nothing online is truly anonymous, not for common users anyway. People at the very highest levels of technological understanding might be able to sufficiently cover their tracks online, but I know it's way beyond my pay grade. 😂
Yep, slander gets dismissed easily. I have a co-worker who went through a divorce and decided all men were evil. Went to HR and told them that every male in the building was hitting on her or making suggestive statements to her. It raised a red flag that suddenly every one of us turned into ogres out of the blue, but the complaint had to be vetted. We weren't worried about that, it was the rumors she started that made it to wives and girlfriends. Relationships were ruined, marriages ended and the best we got was her actually being promoted to get her out of the area. Two employees filed suits, but nothing came from it. They couldn't prove that their marriage and relationship weren't already on thin ice.
yeah, an old couple i know going to be divorcing soon, been married for about 40 years or more. she left 10ish years ago, taking what she could and maxing out all his cards. 3 or 4 years later when she ran out of money and he paid the cards off she came back. then now she is divorcing him and taking half of everything (and more), maxed out the cards again (which are in her name only this time) but he still has to pay the cards off court says. she claims abuse but the guy is the most dedicated bible follower you'd meet, she hates men, hates her two sons and doesnt like two of her 3 daughters and more recently hasnt been talking to the one daughter she did like because said daughter has a son of her own and because he is male there is a problem. she is also in a legal battle with one of the sons for taking his kid across state border, preventing him to have his daughter on his days of custody (who the little girls mom was somehow able to get partial custody, but because she wants the gibs and not out of caring for the kid). lots more to the story but bullet points.
Was in the military. High level officer was about to get a serious reprimand after getting by on a few smaller mistakes. Nothing had been documented and he was about to get a very career limiting letter. Like no more promotions type thing. He filed a discrimination complaint against his CO. The entire ship had to have a discrimination investigation for his formal complaint. Like another officer came onboard and did a formal inquiry. Nothing was substantiated. Here's the kicker. If he received any new performance letters out of the blue in the next six months (or retroactive ones) it would automatically be considered retaliation by the CO. I hated that guy but damn, he knew the system. And it was all because the CO was lenient and held off since it was a serious career item. Anyway that guy got his normally scheduled promotion the next year. And no letter since he transferred off soon after.
He said he was defamed, but as you noted, the Streisand effect. If the defamation didn't begin until he made the public spectacle, who defamed who? Also, he may say the opinions expressed are untrue, but just as her or their recollection of events: it is a matter of opinion, I can only presume. If someone says a date tried to take sex they felt earned through ‘buying the date,’ is that defamation? I guess the courts are to say…
I'm wondering what, if any, actual financial losses he had. He said it affected his job, but nothing was said as to how -- was his job affected because he was performing poorly from the emotional toll or did his boss see the posts and demote him?
I would argue if he was harmed by slander the lawsuit could be the best thing to restore his reputation by exposing this whisper network and getting his side of the story out there. Much like how Johnny Depp's reputation was restored to a degree after his lawsuit with Amber Heard.
@@B_Bodziak Theoretically, since it's a private group under lock, it wouldn't be searchable by his employer. Now, if someone on the group doxxed him and contacted his employer, that's another matter entirely.
I am shocked it took this long for such a lawsuit. I have personally seen comments on these groups and they are completely OVERRUN with VERY obvious VERY slanderous accusations that are often so obviously posted by women that are just trying to hurt men they have been dumped by. We're talking about life in prison type accusations that you can just tell is a bitter dumped ex trying to cause hurt. Hopefully we'll see more of these suits.
I also wouldn't be surprised if there are a lot of people in these groups who like to essentially troll by responding to someone else's post claiming they've dated the same person and claiming all kinds of horrible things about them, when they've never actually even met them. This is likely why at least some of the 27 people were named in this case. I think the main reason it took so long for this sort of lawsuit is because most of these sorts of groups are invite-only and not well known to people outside the women participating in them, so most guys don't even know they exist, and even if they knew, might not be able to easily see what people are saying about them. Then they would need to care enough to potentially spend huge amounts of money hiring lawyers, tracking down responsible parties, and going through a long court process, and even then, libel suits are often very difficult to actually win, or realistically get any significant money back out of, so a lot of lawyers would probably recommend not even trying to prosecute something like this unless they've got something unusually good in the way of evidence to work with. (Plus, you run the distinct risk of "poisoning the well" by bringing a lot of publicity to the whole mess (like happened here) and making all other future potential dating partners think that you're just bitter because a bunch of other women called you out because you're a bad date / horrible person, which is never a good look to advertise, whether or not it's actually true.)
If they were with a man, and he dumped them, they have a legal right to call him a LOUSE. They can legally say that he was a cheat, a liar, and a financial abuser if that is what he did. They do not have to keep his poor character or behavior any sort of secret to protect his reputation. WOMEN HAVE FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS. If they cannot prove these things or have no evidence of these things, they cannot say that he is a serial killer, that he uses drugs, that he is a pedophile, a drug dealer or a criminal, but they have a perfect legal right to tell the story about how they were used and abused by that man. What do I mean? Stuff like, "he used me for sex;" "I found out he was cheating on his wife;" "I bought him a car and he ran off without paying for it;" He doesn't pay child support;" "He was living in my apartment for years without paying for anything;" "He cheated on me and impregnated another woman;" "He beat me and I had to call the Police;" "He was a cheapskate who refused to by me a decent meal;" "He was jealous and controlling and would not let me have any friends," and stuff like that. Truth is a defence to defamation, and from what I have heard of the women's accounts, the guy was a devil.
Smh. Yes, there are parallel groups like this where men post about women, and there have been threads/discussions dating back to '90s. Perhaps there are parallel pick up artist forums where women discuss developing "game". Read further; he is no angel. One woman described the abusive texts he sent her when she decided to stop seeing him, he called her fat, ugly, suggested she took money to have sex, and that she had bad teeth. But listen, being unable to handle rejection isn't a gender specific trait, nor is being gossipy.
![[Live] : ONE 169 วันนี้!! "อนาโตลี vs อูมาร์"](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/IK3YZVWuFJg/mqdefault.jpg)
![ไลฟ์สุ่ม iPhone 295 บาท... โกงมั้ย?[ โกงมั้ยครับ ep.97 ] | DOM](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/gdstHEE4UUE/mqdefault.jpg)
What blows me away is when someone goes to court for defamation and they tell the court "of course everything said was a lie....who would be dumb enough to believe anything our broadcasters say" and yet they are still allowed to broadcast lies and half-truths with impunity. Even though they told the courts that NO ONE would be dumb enough to believe them.
And then sit around and wonder why people on the internet all think they can get away with lying too. 🤦🤦♀️🤦♂️
People believe stuff on the internet because we lack the cognitive evolution as a species to handel the technology and are thus extremely vulnerable to propagation and blatant falsities. This is especially true for a certain aged demographic (boomers) whom struggle to recognize photoshopped or AI generated material, synthetic voices, scams, partisan propaganda, fake reviews, and algorithmic influence. The majority of Americans suffer from Dunning Kruger and biased cognition that also render them extremely gullible and naive. You for instance are extremely predictable thanks to a record of your activity. Your being influenced daily on every decision, belief, and thought you make. Most of us complain about journalism while watching our preferred medium with a partisan bias. Take Fox News for instance they’re technically NOT a news organization and are officially an Entertainment company. They have actually leveraged this multiple times to prevent lawsuits and tried agin when they lost nearly a billion dollars to Dominion for defamation. (I guess that fact alone negates the validity of your comment that they don’t get sued) They are only News to the vulnerable whom are less educated on the subject. We watch local news who’s owned by a small number of large media conglomerates like Nexstar and Sinclair with a partisan agenda then, we wonder why facts are either non existent or disseminated with an intentional twist to support a preferred narrative. Certainly media makes mistakes and they do broadcast untruths but most of us perceive news as being either factual or not based on our own bias and partisan influence further cultivated via internet propaganda. If your watching something like NewsMax, Fox News or MSNBC your literally requesting with wanting/willing stupιdity to be lied to. Regardless, If all FB posts were held accountable for lying or defamation the majority of people would be in trouble with their political posts that span far beyond the arena of criticism and opinion. Your likely guilty of it yourself.
Those groups are silly. Loaded with toxicity. He really shouldn't care.
@@AS-gf5jn agreed...but you replied to the wrong comment. Lol.
Dude. There’s proof of him being horrible. He isn’t going to win this. There is just too much proof. He should’ve behaved better. He thought he could treat women terribly and get away with it. It’s free speech and he isn’t going to win. The women have already supported with lots of money on their go fund me pages.
How do politicians get away with lying and defaming people😊
They don’t. Who has done that? Which politician has blatantly lied about another in a manner that was stated as a fact and not an opinion, then proven to be false? (And was NOT sued)? They don’t. They EXPOSE each other because they’re all pretty corrupt sans a few good eggs. Other than that what they say is generally an opinion about how the other person sucks. Also- celebrities have even less rights around this topic. If you’re a public figure- you’re going to be talked about by most people.
Fame is stupid anyways. ☦
And News Networks. All they do is lie and defame others but nothing ever happens to them.
So if the women claimed he has a short winky, that should be measurable.
Lol 😆
Your honor I'd like to bring exhibit 1:
"Put that thing away son, case dismissed" 🔨
@@codemiesterbeats😂😂😂😂
@@codemiesterbeats Exactly. This is stupid. Its okay to question things. Freedom of speech. ☦
_De minimis non curat lex._
Lmfao 😂
I was sued for exposing a streamer for drinking with underage kids. Tried to say I slandered for telling the truth to his fans and employers IRL. It's an annoying process. Always be weary what u put online!
Me too! I got sued over warning the public about renting a bedroom from a woman who has untreated borderline personality disorder and she saw it and sued me. Problem is- she’s on gov’t assistance and no job, so no damages. Also, I didn’t lie. I didn’t use the diagnosis, I only described her behavior. I counter sued for bad faith damages. She lost, I won. 😅
@@kateashby3066
What exactly were you warning people of?
Wary, not weary. Wary means cautious. Weary means tired.
@kateashby3066 that's cool. Where can I look up your case information that you won, so that I may win a similar case.
This is actually _extremely_ common when it comes to dating and relationship content online. People will post one-sided perspectives of their relationship online, most commonly on tiktok, and the comments will go to down blasting the other partner.
Question though: If someone posts something factually false about another person and then it gets a lot of traction with people believing it and spreading it, are the people who spread it liable or is it just the person who initially made the claims?
I suspect it might be whether they reasonably believed it to be true.
People…or women?
In most states, defamation requires that (1) the statement was made intentionally, (2) the statement was false, (3) the person either knew the statement was false or they had sufficient reason to believe the statement was false, (4) the statement caused damage to the victim.
So, if a random person reads a one-sided perspective of a situation that turns out to be false that they then repeat to others? They only have the one-sided self-serving account to go off of, so they have no reason to believe it was false. They would probably be considered not liable.
Don't bother asking Steve anything. He says to post questions and comments, down below, but never answers the questions. Oh well.
@@OttoByOgraffey He does say to post questions, but he never says that he'll actually answer them. TH-camrs that answer questions in comments usually mention that in their videos.
He would have to prove what they wrote was incorrect, and prove what his actual damages were.
How many people knew about this before he filed a lawsuit? It sure seems like a lot more people know about it now.
Didn't someone say there were 60,000 women reading that particular Chicago-based Facebook group?
@@chuckoffcampus9738 yeah and as of right now there's 97k views on this video. I'm sure other people and news outlets have talked about it.
I got sued once for libel. Unfortunately for this lunatic, everything I said was true. I countersued for bad faith (punitive damages) and won. And she lost. 😂
that would be sanctions not punitives damages, but u would win more money from sanctions. sanctions is when they abuse court system. punitive damages is malice instead of negligence when doing the crimes or negligence on a gross scale.
You still loose in the end because why are you gossiping as an adult-true or false.
Steve never denied if he was the guy dating 27 women.
Certain facts of the case are NOT in dispute😂
Guying?
That's not a lie though.
Assumes facts not in evidence
So his philandering finally caught up with him so now he's trying to dodge accountability.
This should be very interesting to follow what happens. There is a big one that blew up out of the Idaho case where a TikToker out of Texas has defamed a professor declaring professor is the killer and she (the professor) has been battling it since. The TikToker is a nutcase who claims her "evidence" is "spiritual".
Though realize this nonsense is very costly, I agree that these nutjobs do need a taste of consequences.
TH-camr, Emily D. Baker has covered this extensively. She's a lawyer and seems most interested in where that ridiculous situation leads in the courts because it's so outrageous.
So his philandering finally caught up with him so now he's trying to dodge accountability.
Is he? Have you read the claims made in that facebook group? The woman who "defamed" him might have been complaining about something entirely different.
The recent case that’s currently popular and far more interesting is the one with deranged TikTok / IP attorney Jeanette Braun. It involves multiple creators from multiple platforms, abuse of DMCA with numerous fraudulent copyright claims, mass flagging and removed of channels, even fraudulent calls to emergency services for frivolous wellness checks, insane slap lawsuits and hilarious cease and desist letters.
@@terripebsworth9623not to mention that multiple try to erroneously claim libel over comments that a presumed by nature to be a matter of opinion. Many people of failed at such litigation and even more have frivolous claims. One such claim just filed the other week.
Totally different issue. That woman has zero evidence except her delusions. These women have first hand experience and shared said experiences in a closed group. That nutty Idaho lady broadcasted her delusions on her PUBLIC TH-cam channel. Very very different. This guy in the lawsuit being talked about here has NO damages. You can’t sue over hurt feelings.
I checked out the rules for the group in my area. (The group is private but their rules are public.) One of them is "no libel, defamation or copyright infringement", along with a multi-paragraph warning about making sure you have evidence, posting at your own risk, that the group is not responsible for what you post, and that you may be sued for libel and defamation.
Obviously you can't make people read and absorb these rules, but that warning is there and in clear language. It shouldn't be Facebook or the group's liability that these posts were made... only those of the people that allegedly demanded this guy.
That said, libel is tricky to prove. In the US, the plaintiff needs to prove that the accusations are false based on a preponderance of the evidence. I personally prefer it that way -- the UK does it backwards and thus allows the elite to sue and bury stories that are embarrassing to them.
Someone can post anonymously on Facebook but the moderator of the group has to approve it. So obviously, a moderator knows who the person is. The man's lawyer can subpoena the moderators to find out who posted.
Were their identities even in question?
How do you post anonymously? I thought you had to have an account to post anything on social media.
Also, I wonder. I think Mr. Lehto was talking about Section 230 protections, but if social media are moderating, doesn't that make them a publisher then, and liable for what they approved to be posted?
@@Shadow_Banned_Conservativemake a throwaway account from 10-minute mail and with a username that suggests you fell asleep on the keyboard?
@@Shadow_Banned_Conservative You do have to have an account. But you can opt to post anonymous to a group, but the moderator has to approve it.
@@tezcanaslan2877 Oh, I thought those days were gone, that these temporary email and text services were pretty much all blacklisted now. The last time I tried to make a throwaway account to activate some kind of trial offer, it wouldn't work. The email and text were rejected. That was a couple of years ago.
Saying someone is a trillionaire wouldn't be harmful? I remember asking my Father why he didn't name his company after himself. He told me the more people who think you have money, the more people will ask you for some of it.
It seems you missed the intent of the statement.
@@B_Bodziak i think you missed the intent, if a guy is dating some girl who hears he's hiding that he's rich then she could do one of two things, one is berate him for being so cheap on dates and the other is accuse him of all sorts of illegal things that never happened because she wants a settlement
Unless that makes you a target of kidnappers.
I also disagree that saying someone is a trillionaire wouldn't be harmful. If the person is on government benefits with no job or other income, then people might think they are a fraud and even false report them for it. There was a time when someone working in a store I went to, tried to make me out to be rich after first having accidentally called me a 'bag lady' (I guess she thought that would fix it), and neither of those things were true. Now I can never know, when people treat me strangely, if it has anything to do with that, or if it's a coincidence.
Sounds like the typical rich person persecution complex. Moochers go after anyone and everyone they can - regardless of socioeconomic status.
Ben waiting for his morning Zap, on the Vacuum tube, Steve's RHS
I’ve been waiting since 2AM.
G’nite Bob.
@@user-no1cares 😂
I won't date anyone heavily into Facebook
I've stopped hanging out with anyone that posts personal stuff online
I only post on TH-cam because users comments aren't searchable (or at least it's not a core feature of the platform).
Or any social media, just means they seek attention and validation. More likely to post some outrageous shit once they have contracted Mad Clout Disease.
From the sound of the title of the groups I am betting they are a place where women can talk about certain men who give off red flags in a way to warn others about them. I sounds like the kind of thing that was intended to keep others safe. I am betting now with him suing some of the members his ability to date is going to be much much harder these days.
No, they are for gossip. One of them has claimed that he's a murderer.
If it was about keeping people safe, why aren't the groups called that? Why isn't it "Beware of these men", instead it's women throwing random guys pictures up asking for "tea" and then anyone can lie in the comments and say what they want. I was literally a victim of this myself.
Reputation is all we truly own and if someone malevolently damages yours, they should be held accountable, especially if in a business situation.
Reminded me of an episode from the TV Show, 2 & 1/2 Men, where Charlie Harper found a website about women commenting about him!
That was a funny show. The personalities of the main characters were so extreme.
I don't remember that exact episode, but I really enjoyed the show.
Makes me wonder if he saw that episode and figured this could be his claim to fame. Like what if it turns out some of those anonymous 27 are actually alts created by him or his friends. 🤔 people are going to some real extremes for clout nowadays.
Once had someone post on Craigslist in a “rants and raves” section where we had some political debate going on. There was a small group of us with various views who tried to actually debate issues and a number of regulars who only knew how to parrot “party lines” without facts.
Well one day one of those not in our “group” posted a slightly veiled threat towards the President (Which isn’t relevant).
Several of us posted that he needs to be careful making such statements about the President as it could be construed as a threat and the SS (secret service) takes such things seriously.
His response was quick and not well considered. He basically said let him remove all doubt about what he meant and that he meant that someone needs to get a rifle and put a bullet through his head (he used his name).
Half a dozen of us responded that he needed to pull down that post immediately or he was likely to get a visit.
He of course refused stating he was posting in an anonymous board and he would be fine. This was before most people know they’re not truly anonymous online.
At least two posters (because I was there when they did it) contacted the SS ti report the incident.
A couple of days later his posts in any topic ended (he had been a prolific poster).
Weeks later someone asked where he’d gone and another responded with “maybe the black SUVs came and got him”.
The OP posted his shortest post ever and it read simply:
“They’re not black, they’re white”.
People have no problem claiming other people are pedophiles online and it appears to be just because the other person is from a different political party.
Or calling other Nazis
1) politicians are practically immune to suing over defamation because they’re public figures. So the bar is EXTRA high for them. You have to straight up SAY that they had sex with a child, as a fact. You can’t just insinuate it like politicians do to each other. So, you must SAY it outright AND you have to KNOW that it’s a lie and say it anyway. So if you actually believe that Hillary diddles kids- then you can’t be sued. And the person suing has to I know it was a lie and said it anyway. Good luck proving THAT.
@@uncletaylorifynot defamation. It’s colloquial in nature. It’s like calling someone a mean name. Can’t sue over that.
Even Steve will tell you there are three sides to every story. Yours, mine, and the truth.
does the same apply to public figures? So if someone says the mayor is corrupt! do they become liable?
One would wonder why anyone would want to work for any employer that bases anything on a social media platform.
I Know!
There is no evidence anywhere that this man actually suffered job loss or any sort of financial hardship because of the opinions posted by these women. He is simply angry that women are warning other women about him and his days of free and irresponsible sex are over.
@@edevos3108, and you of course have evidence for these claims, yes? You can prove that he is just after 'free and irresponsible sex'? You can prove that these women are telling the truth and actually know this man?
I would assume so, because if you didn't, that would make you a *colossal hypocrite*. I'm quite certain that you're not just angry that a man is pointing out the ridiculousness that took place on a social media page that is run by and for women to talk smack about men.
Certainly not! Perish the thought!
@@edevos3108 You don’t know that there’s no evidence “anywhere “ of harm. That was not stated. Nobody reveals their hand before a trial like this and he’d be wise not to.
You’re being unrealistic. Today many do . I would too , particularly for jobs that involve interaction with customer, clients, patients and other employees. A lot of insight can be gained into peoples interactions with others by reading what they have themselves posted.
A media platform can be liable if they demonstrate a willful lack of action toward a company that shows a willful lack of action toward their users. It's a high bar, but it is possible where both have been informed of repeated violations without sufficient action or not fulfilling violated warnings.
Can they be 'served' by a Facebook Instant Message?
No. In California you can file electronically if you know their personal email address or file the old fashioned way by going into court house and then have someone other than you serve the person you’re suing. If you do it then you throw your whole case out.
Good luck buddy. I am on jury your not getting a dime.
I rarely use social media anymore, only use it now and then to keep in touch with a few people that can't seem to keep the same phone number, one thing I never did was publicly post personal things, my opinions on people (unless they are famous/public figures then it's harder to be sued for talking about them), never even got into the showing meals fad that was going on for a while, I only publicly post my opinions on things going on, my opinions on how good/bad a movie I watched was, maybe about how my day went at work (never posting where I work or anything personal about the people I work with). Always treat posting to social media as if you were actually in public talking about the subject of your post. Is what you're posting something you'd feel comfortable talking about in public? If yes then post it, but be aware it could come back to bite you. If no, then don't post it and keep it to yourself.
Make statements posted on social media subject to penalty of perjury.
Attorneys should eat that up.
Mighty hard to apply perjury laws to OPINIONS and WARNINGS.
My cousin dated a man that someone found her and said "oh I dated him too." She introduced my cousin into some kind of online club of women that had dated him that he embezzled their money, or stole from them to use for the next girl. My cousin has no money, he didn't do anything to her specifically, but the online club tried to get her to post that he did. Strange stuff. She dropped out of the club and got harassed enough where she finally told me "the tech person" about it.
Wow. Sounds like his past dates needed to contact the police and harass them instead of your cousin.
Exactly this is what pisses me off about people they attack the wrong person and the wicked get away with their crimes
If that is how they act, I suspect their claims did not have much merit.
@@smsff7 Yep
@@B_Bodziak It they are trying to get her to lie I'm doubt the truth of their words.
Nothing on Facebook is anonymous. Anything said in an FB group is recorded, in essence, forever.
Yup, everything is stored in the hard drive and there is no way to get rid of it.
So yeah similar situation. Girl I matched with did a court record lookup on me and found another person with the same name with an extensive criminal record. Then went to the group to say I had a criminal record and claimed I was lying about my age. I had to put in a lot of time and effort to get the post removed. Then of course I was later posted by a person asking about me and members would comment that they remember me as someone with a criminal history and lying about my age. So it stuck with some of the members. Thankfully it didn't affect my job, but it absolutely damaged my dating reputation.
The good news: people will still date even the worst red flag offenders.
But in my opinion, groups like these are not a representation of freedom of speech, rather they are platform for libel.
And for the record, there are guy groups popping up as well and THEY ARE NO BETTER
Casual maliciousness has become too easy. It normally no longer has any personal cost.
It's always been like that, but now with our social media technology, you can hear about it happening outside of your regular bar.
Especially for women.
Zero accountability and exceedingly rare consequences for it.
Who said it's malicious? The points of whisper networks like this are to protect people and have existed well before the Internet.
@@TimoRutanen Yes it's not new, but the way technology puts it on blast so a group of 60,000 people see it is something else entirely
@@JewTube001 That is it exactly. And the visibility aggravates the problem that creates. Those people now think they are in the right.
Ben is on top of the old electronic device on Steve's RHS
Took me a while to find out wtf you were talking about. 😂 I wonder if he moves it each video, like where's Waldo?
@@craiganthony6532 He moves it most videos. Finding Ben is kind of a game now.
Umm, who is Ben? The sheltie dog ?
And what is a RHS?
Darn, now I have to replay the video... Missed everything looking for Ben's and RHSs...😂
sounds like a SLAPP lawsuit
Can prove it's my account and even my device. How to prove it was in my hands?
Reminds me of 'Charlie' on 2 and half men when Rose put up a website do you know Charlie Harper that invited comments about him.
One of the few times(only) I have to challenge one of Steves comments( as a bad example). Falsely stating "steve is a trillionaire" could be extremely damaging to him with provable costs. Such a claim could see large numbers of requests for financial support( with associated administration costs). The claim could make Steve( as a hypothetical example) a KNR(Kidnap and Ransom) risk requiring the hiring of body guards. The claim could destroy "Steves"freedom of movement. To further emphasize the potential damage: Lottery winners, in states where their names have to be publicized, have been killed because of their winnings.
It seems you missed the intent of his comment.
I was going to post the same opinion. Just because a comment does not sound negative does not mean it cannot cause measurable harm.
@@B_Bodziak I got the intent I was just pointing out that it was a bad example for what he was saying
My brother tells everyone I’m loaded and yeah…it’s caused a ton of problems…including having my home broken into on a number of occasions and a huge amount of my valuables including my wedding ring being stolen…and I’m far from loaded…lol…I’m just frugal and live within my means and fix my own things so I don’t have to pay a fortune to have something like a nicer looking vehicle…but to junkies, I appear well off…I live in a 45 year old mobile home that I own and own my vehicles and that’s considered wealth to a bunch homeless junkies….my brother is a junkie that still lives with our parents and sells drugs out of their basement so…yeah…it’s very damaging
I agree with your assessment. A certain orange man making false statements has also caused a large number of people to attack judges and threaten their lives for doing their jobs. Yet that man still isn't in pretrial detention.
Steve. if meta controls what is posted, say, about the climate, results of national group choices, about the 'molly cyrus' etc.... it would appear that they ARE responsible for ANY posting. if they were only a platform with no controls, then they should enjoy the the same lack of responsibility as the brick layers who paved the town hall.
I’m from NW Florida. We regularly commit slander and libel, even make death threats, no one bats an eye.
That's Maga for ya
Yea well those threats stay online forever and if something happens to someone you knew and you were a part of it that old threatening post will be used against you. All of the internet is backed up in San Francisco. For the feds.
First person in internet history to know slander and libel are not the same.
Reminds me of a man who had his face up on actual giant billboards that some women had paid to be up there. Saying things he didn't do and that he even had AIDS. This was long time ago but still.
Funny this came up. Last week My SIL sent me a picture she saw on one of those pages asking me if I knew the guy and the comments were vicious. Nothing but attacking his looks and what he "must be like" it just seems like a place for single moms to trash men. Funny thing is the man is a manager where I work and I don't know him well but what I know about him is completely opposite of what these people were saying ... "He looks homeless" well he has a paid off 1/3 million dollar home on a lake.... "He looks like a rapist" what does a rapist look like? I mean it was just horrible.
Ben Hundo's on top of the radio tube, left-side shelf, under the TH-cam plaque
It's best to keep off of social media when you're emotionally overwhelmed in any way. Reddit is full of very one sided stories that could get the authors into tons of trouble.
Wise words!
first thing that comes to mind since meta was mentioned, what's up with the, " fact checkers police"? fb has gone on and on with their ," fact checking" to make it appear that the almighty fb has checked everything out. kinda sounds like they're talking out of both sides of their mouths if stuff gets posted that isn't true.
"Step right up folks ride the social media rollercoaster, it's got loops, it's got twists and turns, it's got..." "Mister, I want my money back, that wasn't fun at all." "Sorry kid, you pays your money you takes your chances, now get outta here kid, ya bother me. Step right up folks..."
Good writing skills, Mang.
Bingo. Nice.
Steve thank you for clearing this up this statement
The less we know about what people say about us, the better for our mental health.
What people say about you may have aversive consequences for you even if you are unaware people talking about you.
@@HenriZwols Stop caring. They are unimportant when compared to a peaceful existence you can live with.
If it's "over $75k" he's made it federal then? Diversity of jurisdiction. How does he even know all defendants are diverse without discovery anyhow? Guessing he's pro se and about to lose and have them write 100x as much negative about him after, sadly.😢😅
How is this not considered online bullying?
Did they message him directly..... then hard to prove bullying. Harassment possibly. If their actions had a detrimental effect on his income/career.
I dunno, I would think telling people you are a trillionaire would definitely hurt you. Lots of people calling to borrow money, people tryna rob you, not knowing whether someone whose dating you is genuinely interested or just a gold digger, etc, etc
Time to make a "Are We Dating the Same Golddigger"...this stupidity needs to stop!
Right?
If this was a woman making the same claim, shew buddy, heads would be on pikes already.
Equal rights, equal lefts, best of luck to the dude, IF he has a case, if that is quantifiable.
That you changed "guy" to "golddigger" instead of "woman" says something about you.
Didn't Derrick Jaxn blow the gold digger term up and explain to women that that term was created by guys who are broke and can't afford to take out/ provide for women, or at least the league of women they wish they could get, and very bitter about it....or something along those lines?
@@KVixen My grandfather housekeeper "married" him when she was 60 and he was sick at 83 yo, took all from him and he suddenly died, than made-up a false will.
Kitty, do you presume all gold diggers are only young airheads that also become damage goods in search for "a better life"?
Some are just old hags.
Clear? :)
@@CanItAlready hypergamy aka monkeybranching.
I watch the TV show catfish and it amazes me the people that actually believe they’re in a relationship and are dating for sometimes years to someone that they have never talked to on the phone and never seen.
If it's the same show I saw, some actually do talk to the catfish on the phone
I think it's bad to catfish people in general.
Ironically, if the perpetrator isn't taking money, it's otherwise a mutually beneficial relationship. Both parties enjoy a fantasy about a relationship which is probably better than a real one.
I watched a couple of those - I would have moved on the first time they pulled any of those excuses. Before the Internet I did have someone ( a younger women) I was corresponding (on a subject I taught) with that claimed they had a sudden "legal" issue and needed money. I told her to have her lawyer call mine and we would see if we could help - she replied that he was to busy but she could send a receipt. Never answered that number again - that number called for weeks.
@@danielweston9188
Yeah, its really easy. Anytime you see Drama followed by Need Money.
Ben’s on the Tube!
WOW No 1👍👍👍👍👍
Mornin' Bill
What tube? Where is it in relation to Steve (which body part, left/right?) I've never seen Ben!
@@B_Bodziak Ben is a one hundred dollar bill Steve hides on the set daily. My vague comment would be clear to the regulars that hunt for & try to be the 1st to comment on where’s Benjamin. Welcome to the fray, it ain’t always easy.
Ben on top of radio tube on right under silver play button .
Charlie Sheen was the name I thought of because of that 2 1/2 Men episode that all the Women Charlie got with did the same thing.
Greatest anti Biyatch move in public internet present history.👍 to that Man of man
The case was dismissed 😂
That is why I am very upset with the Jeffrey Epstein list.....they couldn't even get my name right
Never put on Social Media anything you wouldn’t want seen on the front page of the Washington Post.
It's usually very difficult to get intentional infliction of emotional distress. Like extraordinarily difficult. It's not just like "they hurt my feelings." It's like "they basically tortured me."
You usually have to be able to show financial losses before these cases go anywhere
@@B_Bodziak Depends on the state. That's true for celebrities but not necessarily for ordinary people.
Which is how it should be. Now, of course it’s a real thing, but you don’t want to lower the bar too much on these things, because then they can easily be abused. Easily.
@@TomJakobW I can barely tolerate the idea of libel. Somebody insults you and you can sue them even if it's obviously jokes to the people reading it, but some lawyers is able to twist it. It's crazy.
It's also so horribly abused on a regular basis for political reasons. It's disgusting. It's often used to punish people well beyond any actual monetary harm a person could have actually suffered. They'll award somebody 100x their lifetime earning potential, which is obscene.
@@gy5rffg5rf That's still not intentional infliction of emotional distress. There is an extremely high bar for that.
I was thinking from the title that people were just pointing out they all dated similar persons with weird background. 😮
Though I don't make it a habit of talking untrue smack about people, all I can say is good luck getting anything out of me. I have no assets to take. I suspect that this guy might actually get somewhere with this. People really do get crazy irresponsible in what they say on Social Media.
@@gy5rffg5rf My state is 20 years for most debts. I don't have a bank account. I will never own a house and have no need for a car. My income is off-limits for everyone other than the tax man.
People like me ( if I owed money at all ) are why people who sue need to research first. You could end up suing someone and never seeing that money again.
@@gy5rffg5rf oh, you mean like when they take 75 to 100% of your pay for support? Yeah, that happened to me. Caused so much damage that is one reason why I'm now collection proof and I will remain so for the rest of my life.
I had that life experience and was lucky to get out of it with 0 owed.
If he cannot prove that these women had no right to any OPINION about him, he will get nowhere.
You can still be put in jail or have your driver’s license revoked.
@@JH-pt6ih Yes, for support and taxes. Most standard debt including those who have been sued, no you won't go to jail for that.
And I thought that only grandmas and companies too cheap to get their own website used Facebook now.
I can't find one woman to date me, and this guy's messing around with 27? Phew!
According to the complaint, no. These groups are scary and I refuse to join them. He dated one woman. She figured she'd check on him and posted to the group, and a bunch of group members said they'd dated him. They said seriously bad things, and apparently it got back to his social circle and workplace.
Women largely swipe on the top 5% of men.
@@stevec3526 On apps, they have certain outcomes. You might have noticed that many people (women too) say how horrible dating apps are. A select few stay on apps. So those statistics? Yeah, they're true. There's selective marketing, so men who aren't getting matched often keep subscriptions. Women more frequently cancel the subscriptions. Hence the statistics.
@@stevec3526 Despite what my mother may think, I'm pretty sure I'm not in that 5% Lol.
Sow the wind, reap the whirlwind...
Nice example of Streisand effect.
Legacy people trying to stay relevant through litigation.
And people wonder why "good" people dont use dating sites
One of my coworkers.. single in her late 40’s, is on this sight all the time. I know for sure there were 2 guys she dated on it. She read me what people said about them 😳 I know one of the guys and I asked her to screenshot shot the conversation and send it to me… she said no way!! It’s highly monitored and she will get kicked out for it 😳 it’s so well hidden on facebook that I couldn’t find the site. I have know idea how she found it. 😳😳🤦♀️ We are in Nebraska
Yes the moderators will tag you in a post and then kick you out if you screenshot anything.
@@Rainbowssugar to think they know when a screenshot is taken 😳
A lot of technology I don’t understand and that is one. She told me I could hold my camera over it and take a picture, then they never know.
Good. That’s smart of them. It’s a private group and that’s how the info should stay. It’s like having the ladies over for drinks and gossiping. You can’t sue someone for what they said in a living room, that STAYS in a living room.
They can't know if you took a screenshot and shared it privately. Usually they find out you took a screenshot if you share it publicly on your profile or the info contained in it can lead back to you. If they never see it on the Internet they can't know you took it.
@@disguysn thank you 😊
Yah section 230 went away on Facebook when they started editing what people see, and do on their platform so yah they can be used for every single thing now because they violated section 230
Another lesson I learned from Ken White (Popehat): don't charge headlong into filing a frivolous lawsuit if you have a unique or uncommon name. This dude does and oooooooo boy is it just gonna be a stain on his reputation for anyone who does a quick search.
If he didn't want the attention, he could have referenced himself as "John Doe" in order to keep his name private.
@@B_Bodziak good point...almost like he's going out of his way to get attention. Maybe that's actually his whole intent, to gain fame this way.
It might have been an attempt to draw attention away from his then upcoming trial for tax fraud. He was convicted after drastically under-reporting income from selling "sweepstakes" kiosks for a company connected to the mob and claiming false donations for tax write-offs. He was convicted in the same courthouse where he filed his lawsuit.
This is why you don’t use dating sites … to many ways to get hurt by weirdo’s…
I wonder what she said :-) If it is true and provable in court as true is it still defamation? The guy might end up being sorry he went after her.
Exactly. Because if true, or if the person honestly believes it to be true then they haven't committed defamation, by default defamation requires that the person know it's false.
I wondered too, so I found the complaint. According to him, he really dated one of those women. She basically said that and posted identifying information. He's after her for doxxing and a related charge. A ton of people in the group made up stories. I don't remember all of them, but he was called psycho, clingy, and they said he harassed one woman and ghosted another.
Social media is so creepy. Imagine the UPROAR if we made a gender swapped version.
There is a gender swapped version lol people don’t like cheating women either
Based on the name and background info, I suspect the group is not about literally finding situations where women are dating the same guy in some kind of cheating situation. Sounds more likely that it is mocking the frequency with which different men commit the same faux pas.
I stumbled on a similar group recently for men, the idea was to scope out a potential dates for red flags, so same deal.
No, it's about literally the same guy. Modern women all share the same guys. Apparently women on dating apps all only swipe right on the same 5% of guys and those guys are juggling 20, 30, 40 or more at a time while the other 95% get nothing. I'm not on dating apps so please don't shame me for being the messenger.
@@James_St._James lmao that would be a hilarious reality. Imagine 😂
Swear to God Steve would *usually* pick up on things like this pretty well... 🤔
@@James_St._Jamesbuahaha that doesn’t sound real at all 😂
Sometimes it means you dated someone who acted the same way, not the same person.
5:50 I think you're misunderstanding what these groups are. I've never heard of these particular groups either, but it sounds very much like these are groups where women warn each other about men who are extra creepy or abusive. So the purpose isn't to find a man who's cheating, it's to warn other women that a guy you dated turned out to be abusive so they can stay away. This is something women have always done long before the internet, and it's also exactly the sort of thing where a man would file a SLAPP-style lawsuit to shut them up even if every thing they claim about him is true. The type of man who would be talked about in such a group is also the type to lawyer up and try to intimidate these women into shutting up.
I'm not saying that's what this particular situation is about, but that's my feeling coming away from hearing you describe what's going on.
EXACTLY
You're right, in part. They're also to find cheaters. Unfortunately, their rules aren't designed to get to the truth at all. They're designed for maximum damage to anyone mentioned.
@@yesitschelleVetting has been away people check out potential dates for very long time. Overall, it works pretty well for sorting out creeps and abusers. Unfortunately, like most rule of thumb type systems, it's easy to abuse for someone without any integrity. Some people will stretch the truth so drastically that it turns into a lie, or some people will just flat out make stuff up, simply because the relationship didn't go the way they wanted it to. "He raised his voice at me" turns into "he was verbally abusive". "I caught him looking at another girl's butt" turns into "he was cheating on me". Or, again, they can just flat out make stuff up. And with pseudo-anonymous posters, it can be nearly impossible to tell one way or the other what is true, what is an emotionally fueled stretch, and what is just a flat out lie.
@@Alan-jk1yi When I first heard of them, that was my thought. Then I read an interview with someone who runs it. The interview in favor of the group. The theme was that men are bad and we'll warn you. The rules are absurd, like they go on and on about screenshots with zero mention of honesty. Group members and former group members say similar things, and they sound like the article with the interview. Like any man posted, they "find out" lots of terrible things.
@@yesitschelle I think most groups on the internet with negative purposes like this tend to get nasty very quickly because they tend to attract bitter and vengeful people (plus it's the internet, and the internet tends to bring out the worst in some people). It's like that with all things, not just dating. Groups or channels that post about abusive police interactions tend to be flooded with people saying "all cops are bastards", while groups or channels that focus on the dangerous but necessary cop interactions tend to attract people who take a great amount of joy in watching people be arrested or shot while yelling that they deserved it. Both sides devolve into nastiness quite easily because they're focusing on a negative aspect rather than a more balanced outlook, and therefore attract people more interested in those overly negative aspects. The classic echo chamber problem.
When people see that corporations can in court admit that everything they said was a lie and still not have repercussions that are actually more effective than just side-eyeing them. Then maybe people wouldn't be so certian they can spread lies without worry too. The courts by not holding public corporations accountable, since everything is public teaches people that lies have no consequences.
did 27 really lie about the same guy? what is the evidence that what they said is untrue? Unless it is clearly lies and not a different view points then it sounds like a SLAPP lawsuit.
Agreed.
So which state/court take the case when someone does that like let say Florida but the victim live in new york?
Social media companies have immunity, UNLESS they were made aware of it and refused to remove it. They CAN lose their immunity.
That's correct, Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act
Most people online now just give it the nickname "safe harbor" even though there is a different provision with that name
I assume this is going to get thrown out.
It's crazy how these groups are allowed to exist. The groups still exist
It's a symptom of our unwillingness to deal with dangerous men.
@@liamwacey807 thats the stupidest thing ive ever heard
If a social media agency can fact check items that people post for supposedly misleading or false information, then they should be accountable for people who post slanderous information and allowing them to do so….
They are not "fact checking" and it's NOT their purvey to do so.
@@Calc_Ulator But they *claim* they are. Right? You get those warnings about "misinformation"? That's the supposed platform exercising some editorial control, which they're NOT supposed to be doing.
Nothing would ever get posted if they tried fact checking every comment.
How do you fact check if a guy ghosts a woman? Lmfao. This is absurd. It’s not like they said he had herpes or raped them. They just said he was a jerk. Ya can’t Sue over that and you can’t fact check an OPINION. This is so dumb lol
@@vancomycinb1193 You seem to not have a grasp of "publisher vs platform" and I haven't the fucking time.
A deliberate Streisand Effect that maybe more single guys should try!
I got staged ploy vibes from this too. Lol.
People need to watch their mouths!
Apparently he was variously described as 'a psycho', 'very clingy' and was also accused of ghosting.
That sounds like two diametrically opposed terms. How might one be clingy and ghost at the same time.
@@GS-zc4sk Different chicks say different stuff?
@@GS-zc4sk ghosting means gone forever not distant sometimes. Someone can be clingy up until they ghost the person.
@@GS-zc4sk There's a reason I won't join those groups. They say that sort of stuff. Any bad thing they can think of about a potential date, they'll say it.
@@GS-zc4sk cling long enough to get what ya want. then move on?
Imagine a website that does THE EXACT SAME THING but TO women..... Could never come into existence. Your masters won't let it.
Imagine if it was a site defaming women... oh the double standard.
I enjoy your videos. I've learned so much about law. Can you post a video with the viper lol, gorgeous car.
In a dystopian future there exists a AreWeWatchingTheSameLawyer webpage.
I think this happened to Charley Harper on 'Two and a Half Men'.
I remember a site called "Don't Date Him, Girl" years ago and I think it's still around. Women can name the person, city and say whatever they want. At least that's what it used to be. True or not, you can imagine the stuff women say on there.
Lol you guys must be old people. Because burn pages were a thing in high school.
Where they made a Facebook page, exposing everything. Txt, your house, exes, photo, everything to destroy your reputation😂😂😂
I think the FBI had the site removed
Women gossiping and spreading rumors? Nonsense, women never do that. That's a false stereotype! /s
I got put on there. I suspect it was an ex girlfriends son. Said I had aids and other crap. Zero repercussions
@@noirekuroraigami2270
Old people become Old & Smelly.
Even the vaunted VPNs tech Bros go on about aren't foolproof. It takes a damn sight more leg work and possibly a court order or two, almost nothing online is truly anonymous, not for common users anyway. People at the very highest levels of technological understanding might be able to sufficiently cover their tracks online, but I know it's way beyond my pay grade. 😂
Yep, slander gets dismissed easily. I have a co-worker who went through a divorce and decided all men were evil. Went to HR and told them that every male in the building was hitting on her or making suggestive statements to her. It raised a red flag that suddenly every one of us turned into ogres out of the blue, but the complaint had to be vetted. We weren't worried about that, it was the rumors she started that made it to wives and girlfriends. Relationships were ruined, marriages ended and the best we got was her actually being promoted to get her out of the area. Two employees filed suits, but nothing came from it. They couldn't prove that their marriage and relationship weren't already on thin ice.
Sounds like mob justice is in order.
yeah, an old couple i know going to be divorcing soon, been married for about 40 years or more. she left 10ish years ago, taking what she could and maxing out all his cards. 3 or 4 years later when she ran out of money and he paid the cards off she came back. then now she is divorcing him and taking half of everything (and more), maxed out the cards again (which are in her name only this time) but he still has to pay the cards off court says. she claims abuse but the guy is the most dedicated bible follower you'd meet, she hates men, hates her two sons and doesnt like two of her 3 daughters and more recently hasnt been talking to the one daughter she did like because said daughter has a son of her own and because he is male there is a problem. she is also in a legal battle with one of the sons for taking his kid across state border, preventing him to have his daughter on his days of custody (who the little girls mom was somehow able to get partial custody, but because she wants the gibs and not out of caring for the kid). lots more to the story but bullet points.
Was in the military. High level officer was about to get a serious reprimand after getting by on a few smaller mistakes. Nothing had been documented and he was about to get a very career limiting letter. Like no more promotions type thing.
He filed a discrimination complaint against his CO. The entire ship had to have a discrimination investigation for his formal complaint. Like another officer came onboard and did a formal inquiry. Nothing was substantiated.
Here's the kicker. If he received any new performance letters out of the blue in the next six months (or retroactive ones) it would automatically be considered retaliation by the CO.
I hated that guy but damn, he knew the system. And it was all because the CO was lenient and held off since it was a serious career item.
Anyway that guy got his normally scheduled promotion the next year. And no letter since he transferred off soon after.
I have to point out that there’s a guy serving a double life sentence for creating a website that other people posted drugs on to sell them.
He said he was defamed, but as you noted, the Streisand effect. If the defamation didn't begin until he made the public spectacle, who defamed who?
Also, he may say the opinions expressed are untrue, but just as her or their recollection of events: it is a matter of opinion, I can only presume. If someone says a date tried to take sex they felt earned through ‘buying the date,’ is that defamation? I guess the courts are to say…
I'm wondering what, if any, actual financial losses he had. He said it affected his job, but nothing was said as to how -- was his job affected because he was performing poorly from the emotional toll or did his boss see the posts and demote him?
I would argue if he was harmed by slander the lawsuit could be the best thing to restore his reputation by exposing this whisper network and getting his side of the story out there. Much like how Johnny Depp's reputation was restored to a degree after his lawsuit with Amber Heard.
@@B_Bodziak Theoretically, since it's a private group under lock, it wouldn't be searchable by his employer.
Now, if someone on the group doxxed him and contacted his employer, that's another matter entirely.
People don't know this anymore
I am shocked it took this long for such a lawsuit. I have personally seen comments on these groups and they are completely OVERRUN with VERY obvious VERY slanderous accusations that are often so obviously posted by women that are just trying to hurt men they have been dumped by. We're talking about life in prison type accusations that you can just tell is a bitter dumped ex trying to cause hurt. Hopefully we'll see more of these suits.
I also wouldn't be surprised if there are a lot of people in these groups who like to essentially troll by responding to someone else's post claiming they've dated the same person and claiming all kinds of horrible things about them, when they've never actually even met them. This is likely why at least some of the 27 people were named in this case.
I think the main reason it took so long for this sort of lawsuit is because most of these sorts of groups are invite-only and not well known to people outside the women participating in them, so most guys don't even know they exist, and even if they knew, might not be able to easily see what people are saying about them. Then they would need to care enough to potentially spend huge amounts of money hiring lawyers, tracking down responsible parties, and going through a long court process, and even then, libel suits are often very difficult to actually win, or realistically get any significant money back out of, so a lot of lawyers would probably recommend not even trying to prosecute something like this unless they've got something unusually good in the way of evidence to work with.
(Plus, you run the distinct risk of "poisoning the well" by bringing a lot of publicity to the whole mess (like happened here) and making all other future potential dating partners think that you're just bitter because a bunch of other women called you out because you're a bad date / horrible person, which is never a good look to advertise, whether or not it's actually true.)
If they were with a man, and he dumped them, they have a legal right to call him a LOUSE. They can legally say that he was a cheat, a liar, and a financial abuser if that is what he did. They do not have to keep his poor character or behavior any sort of secret to protect his reputation. WOMEN HAVE FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS.
If they cannot prove these things or have no evidence of these things, they cannot say that he is a serial killer, that he uses drugs, that he is a pedophile, a drug dealer or a criminal, but they have a perfect legal right to tell the story about how they were used and abused by that man.
What do I mean? Stuff like, "he used me for sex;" "I found out he was cheating on his wife;" "I bought him a car and he ran off without paying for it;" He doesn't pay child support;" "He was living in my apartment for years without paying for anything;" "He cheated on me and impregnated another woman;" "He beat me and I had to call the Police;" "He was a cheapskate who refused to by me a decent meal;" "He was jealous and controlling and would not let me have any friends," and stuff like that.
Truth is a defence to defamation, and from what I have heard of the women's accounts, the guy was a devil.
You say Chicago like a native! 😂
Smh. Yes, there are parallel groups like this where men post about women, and there have been threads/discussions dating back to '90s. Perhaps there are parallel pick up artist forums where women discuss developing "game". Read further; he is no angel. One woman described the abusive texts he sent her when she decided to stop seeing him, he called her fat, ugly, suggested she took money to have sex, and that she had bad teeth. But listen, being unable to handle rejection isn't a gender specific trait, nor is being gossipy.
And this is why he is crazy to have started this lawsuit.
Dennis Reynolds strikes again😂