• laughterlaughter@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    3 months ago

    Oh please. A government doesn’t need expensive lawyers for cases like this, especially if the legal challenge happens in its territory. A simple “lol no” could be sufficient.

    • LeroyJenkins@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      3 months ago

      yeah that’s not how it works. developed countries don’t just go “lol no” and expect people to accept that. there’s a whole process or else they’re just gonna get sued again or lose legitimacy as a government.

      • laughterlaughter@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        3 months ago

        Yeah, Australia is a sovereign government, and some foreign company won’t just come in and twist its arm. Get real.

        • LeroyJenkins@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          I mean, kind of, but still… that’s not how it works lol if Elon builds a credible case, they’re aren’t going to be just “lol no”. it’s gonna cost tax payer dollars and they’re not going to just be “lol no”. they’ll go through due process. it’s gonna go to the courts and it’s going to make shit annoying for people. you’re trivializing this situation like crazy.

          • laughterlaughter@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            3 months ago

            I’m not trivializing the situation, and you’re not saying anything new. Let’s use other examples.

            Google can’t use “Gmail” in Germany. Why haven’t they sued Germany into forcing them to let them use Gmail instead of GoogleMail?

            And remember when Musk threatened to remove Twitter from Europe because of a change in the law? Why didn’t he sue in The Hague?

            All bark and no bite.

            As much as you say the opposite, Australia will “lol no” out of with this one.

            • LeroyJenkins@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              3 months ago

              you know just because you have a few cases where companies didn’t bother doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen at all. thats a logical fallacy where just because you have examples of one side doesn’t mean the opposite isn’t true at all. go google companies suing countries and you’ll see that companies sue countries and their regulators all the time. seriously… the term “companies suing countries” yields a lot of articles about companies suing countries over antitrust laws… companies suing countries over environmental laws, etc. companies are allowed to challenge laws in court and when they do, it’s taken seriously by legitimate governments…

              • laughterlaughter@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                3 months ago

                Now you’re just doing mental gymnastics. Australia is taking the issue seriously. It deliberated on the issue and determined that that Twitter post is cancer, so it must be removed. Twitter can sue 200 times if they want to, and Australia will “lol no” every time.

                • LeroyJenkins@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  me telling you that you’re using logical fallacies to make a point is me telling you that you’re the one doing mental gymnastics here. I like how you said that they deliberated bc that is already saying they’re doing more than just “lol no” and exactly the point I’m trying to make here. they do more than just say “lol no”. they deliberate and it takes time and tax payer dollars to do that.

                  • laughterlaughter@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    3 months ago

                    Nah, brah. Australia has more power than Twitter. The cost is negligible to them. They can “lol no” as many times as it wants, even ban it if it becomes a little shit like its CEO.

                    This conversation is getting repetitive. Do you have anything else to discuss? Did you see the eclipse? How did you like it?