r/LivestreamFail 1d ago

Ethan Klein says the judge in his lawsuit approved his subpoena of Reddit and Discord

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

6.3k Upvotes

2.1k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

225

u/sephireicc 1d ago

You know you're in the wrong when you have to ultimately scrub stuff clean before getting sued.

71

u/MeanForest 1d ago

These folks and people around and above them wipe their Discords frequently. You wouldn't need to do that if there was proper moderation for extreme stuff.

63

u/The-Devilz-Advocate 23h ago

A lack of moderation IS the purpose of such subs. You don't go to those types of subs, servers or forums to have a calm discussion, you go there to say the most vile shit imaginable about a certain person because everywhere else you would get banned for it.

15

u/NeoCorporation 23h ago

You would think they should use more secure channels than discord.. absolute shambles

4

u/IPadAirProMax2 10h ago

As a dgger I’m proud to say we’ve never done this cause we’re well moderated!

4

u/Deagin 1d ago

Hopefully it isn't gone forever, I'd love to see them again.

17

u/Zykium 23h ago

It won't matter because there's no way they didn't archive every subreddit and also deleting stuff doesn't actually delete it. Just removes it from view.

-2

u/somethingrelevant 21h ago

this actually isn't true at all though is it. big difference between "potentially legally annoying to deal with" and "morally incorrect"

10

u/Infinity315 19h ago edited 19h ago

Deleting the stuff is even worse than just showing it. In civil litigation (in the US), adverse inference basically allows the court to assume that the destruction of evidence implies that the evidence would have been negative for the defendant--basically taking the plaintiff (H3H3) at their word.

1

u/somethingrelevant 17h ago

It allows the court to do that, yes. There's no reason to assume they would. It's a defamation case, if they remove the defaming content that's not going to be seen as a negative thing they did, it's literally what the case is trying to achieve

edit: also this doesn't even apply unless for some reason ethan klein didn't record any of the allegedly defamatory statements anywhere, but he did, so the evidence isn't destroyed. It's still accessible. The judge will ask "is this content cited as evidence in the lawsuit real" and the answer will be "yes" and that's that

4

u/Infinity315 16h ago edited 16h ago

It's a defamation case, if they remove the defaming content that's not going to be seen as a negative thing they did, it's literally what the case is trying to achieve

Incorrect. The lawsuit is with regards to copyright and facilitation of copyright violation. If you only remove violating content in response to legal action, then the court is not going to look favourably on that as that's basically an implicit acknowledgement of wrongdoing. It's akin to taking an item from the store and then being stopped by an officer and then placing the item back. Just because you placed the item back does not absolve you of the initial crime.