Article wants you to think hired goons shows up with baseball bats or something. Issuing subpoenas for legal proceedings is a standard legal process and they’re often required to be hand delivered to ensure receipt.
People have raised concern about decreasing transparency at OpenAI and that merits attention. But this article describes a standard legal practice.
If you can argue that the action was baseless harassment, then do so. Frivolous lawsuits have their own penalties. But you can’t argue with the subpoena process on its face.
Subpoena + publicity = uninsurable. And when you work for a low-profit endeavor, your “damages” are limited to the money you might have made were you insurable, at least that’s how the courts measure it and the lawyers decide to take the case or not. OpenAI would probably gladly lose a case and pay whatever income The Midas Project lost as a result of OpenAI’s actions - profit isn’t the point of The Midas Project, reporting what is happening in the industry is, and that mission has been effectively thwarted with the uninsurable status.
Odd, I just kinda did do that. The process here is very clearly being used to try put a cooling effect on criticism, and the anti-SLAP rules only work if someone can afford to pay for litigation (another example of a flawed system).
Article wants you to think hired goons shows up with baseball bats or something. Issuing subpoenas for legal proceedings is a standard legal process and they’re often required to be hand delivered to ensure receipt.
People have raised concern about decreasing transparency at OpenAI and that merits attention. But this article describes a standard legal practice.
Ah yes the old using legal processes to quash critics. Nothing to see here, just standard legal practice.
If you can argue that the action was baseless harassment, then do so. Frivolous lawsuits have their own penalties. But you can’t argue with the subpoena process on its face.
Subpoena + publicity = uninsurable. And when you work for a low-profit endeavor, your “damages” are limited to the money you might have made were you insurable, at least that’s how the courts measure it and the lawyers decide to take the case or not. OpenAI would probably gladly lose a case and pay whatever income The Midas Project lost as a result of OpenAI’s actions - profit isn’t the point of The Midas Project, reporting what is happening in the industry is, and that mission has been effectively thwarted with the uninsurable status.
Odd, I just kinda did do that. The process here is very clearly being used to try put a cooling effect on criticism, and the anti-SLAP rules only work if someone can afford to pay for litigation (another example of a flawed system).
You didn’t argue it at all, you just asserted it, and now you’re just asserting the motivation.
Yes, and to expand on my argument may I point out my functioning eyes.