this post was submitted on 19 Aug 2024

917 points (98.8% liked)

Technology

59596 readers

3235 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

917

Texas judge who bought Tesla stock won’t recuse himself from X v. Media Matters (arstechnica.com)

submitted 3 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

112 comments fedilink hide all child comments

(page 2) 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] [email protected] 127 points 3 months ago (18 children)

The fact that we just left it up to them to recuse themselves is a major unchecked flaw.

load more comments (18 replies)

[–] [email protected] 29 points 3 months ago (5 children)

For anyone confused by this headline, there are two trials this judge is considering for X

[O'Conner] was overseeing two lawsuits filed by X and recused himself from only one of the cases.

This isn't the new case about the "illegal boycott" O'Conner has recused himself from that trial (likely) because he also owns stock in Unilever, one of the defending companies

load more comments (5 replies)

[–] [email protected] 25 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Democracy in America in a nutshell.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 3 months ago (1 children)

"American Style" Democrqcy

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] [email protected] 85 points 3 months ago (2 children)

The reason to have courts at all is to have an alternative to violence to resolve conflicts of interest.

This is why black market negotiations are done featuring a lot of well-armed guys.

This is also why the public needs to be able to trust the courts are impartial.

This is why even the appearance of misconduct cannot be tolerated.

So at the time your goons kill their goons to resolve the dispute, kill the corrupt judge as well, because its his fault you had to resort to violence in the first place.

[–] [email protected] 28 points 3 months ago (5 children)

If it matters, the judge is a Republican.

They seem to be in the news more often....

[–] [email protected] 22 points 3 months ago

You didn't have to mention his party, everyone knew he was a Republican from the headline.

load more comments (4 replies)

[+] [email protected] -33 points 3 months ago (7 children)

Can someone explain the conflict they see here? X and Tesla are 2 different companies.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago

The former was bought with stock from the latter and possibly needs more funding via stock sales from Tesla to stay running since they lost their advertisers.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

In my opinion, it comes down to the wording of the U.S. judges' code of conduct

A judge shall disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned

While the link between Musk's two companies might be debatable, it definitely raises "reasonable questions" about whether or not the judge can be impartial. It is much easier to recuse oneself then to try to deal with a mistrial, so the judge not recusing themselves is extremely suspicious.

Also, as to evidence to whether Musk's involvement with X has impacted Tesla stock, that has been a matter of debate for a while. X is in a dire financial situation because of the loans taken out during the buyout. If they cannot get advertisers back on the platform, then either X goes bankrupt or Elon has to chip in his own money. Musk's money is mostly locked in to Tesla stock, and if he sells a large number, the stock will inevitably go down. Therefore, if Elon loses this case, it is very possible that the judge will lose money.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 3 months ago (2 children)

As I noted elsewhere, the latter argument about him having to sell to bail out x is a compelling argument. That their values are inherently tied together by virtue of him being owner I'm less convinced about because people claim the stock prices are linked, but have no provided no evidence that it is the case, despite it being a relatively easy thing to prove mathematically.

load more comments (2 replies)

[–] [email protected] -5 points 3 months ago

How dare you interrupt the circle jerk.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 3 months ago (3 children)

Why do people downvote others who are just asking questions? I’ll never understand the mindset. You ask an honest and genuine question and people just downvote it for no reason. I don’t get it.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

As a Brit, we just had riots due to a rightwing posh dickhead "just asking questions". Look for "Farage riots". (Something Elon made worse)

Some questions aren't questions but dog whistles and conspiracy theories.

Of course owning stock in one Elon company compromises you judging another Elon company. You don't even have to look hard to see how he leverages one for another. Or could if he hadn't already. Not seeing it is done willfully.

[–] [email protected] 25 points 3 months ago

Because disingenuously asking loaded questions (not saying this is one) has become a favorite tactic of conservatives and other trolls. It's so common now that people automatically assume the questioner is acting in bad faith.

[–] [email protected] 22 points 3 months ago (2 children)

The issue here is because they're linked by the owner. If one stock goes up/down, the other does too. This has happened repeatedly with these two companies specifically, even.

So although they don't own stock in the company in question, they still have a stock in seeing it succeed. Its success will bring about their own financial gain.

The fact that this issue was voiced and they specifically took the action that raises questions about authenticity also means we must question if that's even the goal. If this went to a different judge, after all, one with no bias, then if this judge is unbiased, he should expect the same outcome. Of course, if he were biased and intended to give a biased ruling to take advantage of the chance to directly increase his wealth, then we'd expect him to be reluctant to let another judge rule on it. He could miss his financial opportunity, after all.

[–] [email protected] 36 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

Here's the conflict a to b: https://fortune.com/2024/08/15/elon-musk-tesla-stock-sale-twitter-x-advertiser-boycott-finances-bradford-ferguson/

archive link

[–] [email protected] 17 points 3 months ago

A strong point for sure, thank you.

[–] [email protected] 26 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Same owner, pretty simple.

"If you help my X then your T goes up in value"

[+] [email protected] -29 points 3 months ago (4 children)

If you can show me some strong correlation between x and Tesla stock, that doesn't also correlate with the market as a whole, it would go a long way to proving that point. Other than that, it's just speculation that it might influence the price of his own stock, which seems like an extremely tenuous claim as to why it's reasonable to believe he should recuse himself.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Let me get this straight, just because they could stand to gain financially does not mean they should recuse themselves. Furthermore we have to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt decision X results is Y extra money to satisfy you.

If you move the goalpost past Jupiter I guess there is no corruption at all. Keep moving along nothing to see here...

[–] [email protected] -2 points 3 months ago

You could have just said it was speculation. All the attacks and lies about what I am doing or what would satisfy me were completely unnecessary.

[–] [email protected] -4 points 3 months ago (1 children)

That is a pretty ridiculous response, frankly. If you're saying this judge should step aside, you should be able to back that statement up with at least some evidence.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 3 months ago (1 children)

There are plenty of judges without this conflict of interest available. They recuse themselves because ethically it is what is right. There is no shame, it is normal procedure.

A judge who has a large investment should not rule on a case that they have a financial interest in. Even if you believe they could remain impartial it breeds distrust in the process.

So you are arguing they should prove 100% that their claim is true but that is not how it works. Corruption is a real issue and your hand waving isn't making it go away.

[–] [email protected] -5 points 3 months ago

You're treating the fact this is a conflict of interest as a foregone conclusion, and I'm not convinced the link between the two is strong enough to be a concern.

[–] [email protected] 22 points 3 months ago

Elons purchase of twatter is backed by tesla shares.

He might need to sell TSLA stock to bail out Twatter.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 3 months ago

Elon's companies have had financial trends that ebb and flow with the whims of the influence of their owner, intended and otherwise, the correlation is:

They have the same owner.

load more comments (1 replies)

load more comments