If you win (I hope), maybe you can get his "theinventorofemail" website replaced with a picture of a sad kitten. I hope you find a well-funded third-party (EFF?) to represent you, takes money to fight money.
You're focusing exclusively on the DNC hack of Podesta's account (the report covers a lot more than just that one thing) and also forgetting who the intended audience for the intelligence report summary was for. It wasn't for techies or people who appreciate breakdowns like the one from pwnallthethings, it was for the general public who doesn't have classified access.
This is a silly argument. You expect the government to do what it has done, which is to give members of Congress with the security clearance to view it access to the information that they have. It's not like 99% of the electorate is an expert in international manipulation. That's what Congress is supposed to be validating. The WMD case is an example where this failed, but again, what is supposed to be happening in cases where they're working with classified information? Yes, the government can lie and manipulate Congress, but if you're suggesting the alternative is for the government to make its case to the general public, that seems pointless. Most won't understand what they're looking at or any of the nuances involved. Yes, at some level the people have to depend on the government not to mislead them. No, it's not possible in the very partisan environment we have now, where there are no such things as facts. The US democracy is broken (or working as intended based on to whom you're speaking), however this article is pointing at a symptom in a much larger problem and wagging a finger at it.
Main reason they bully/attack people who ask them questions: THEY KNOW THEY'RE LYING. It's a classic defense for people caught in wrongdoing - hit them hard and fast so they never question again.
It looks like there's some indication it does sway people in one direction or another. As a personal thought, when Facebook posts it in "trending news stories" or suggests b.s. news as a "you liked x, maybe you'll like y and z!" when someone likes something, it's implicitly endorsing it as somehow valid, which is one of the things that is causing legitimate news organizations to drop things like Taboola and Outbrain due to clickbaity, misleading headlines and images.
Even if fake news just reinforces people's existing opinions and causes them to dig in deeper, it is effecting change. It's silly to suggest it's the ONLY reason for the result of the election, but it's equally silly to dismiss it out of hand. Russians wouldn't be trying to sway public opinion with comment trolling if they didn't think it was changing public opinion. It actually can.
I mean, really. It's like trying to argue that RT or other state-sponsored news organizations/sites aren't influencing opinions. Ref: "propaganda" and psychology, it's effective.
The argument at its heart seems to come back to censorship and who decides what news is fake. That's a perfectly valid argument, but to argue that it doesn't matter in any case because fake news doesn't influence people is flat out wrong. Argue the case on its technicalities.
So what you're saying is, you don't know if it actually affects opinion or not, but you don't think it should because you don't feel like it should, so you're grasping at anything that might make your chosen reality the true one. Starting to feel like Andrew's articles about Google on The Register...
This reminds me a bit of "IT", though. At least the "fundamental shift" part.
Personally, I think Musk is a pompous git. However...
I like his legalese at the bottom. I think I'll start including a version of it in my emails:
"Certain statements in this blog post, such as those about future products, services and features, are “forward-looking statements” that are subject to risks and uncertainties. These forward-looking statements are based on current expectations. Various important factors could cause actual results to differ materially. Tesla disclaims any obligation to update this information."
Relatedly, I just now got off the phone after cancelling my AT&T service. It was pretty painful. Like talking to a perky Starbucks barista for 15 minutes. I'm not sure how many times I said "no, just cancel, nothing you can say will make me:
1) Stay 2) Get new service 3) Get TV service (so I can get unlimited bandwidth, apparently) 4) Get a wireless plan 5) Just put it on hold for a month"
I mean, jesus. I know the employees are incentivized to try to talk you into staying but this actually took 20 minutes to get them to do, and that's even with me saying "no" every 20 seconds. And now I have to send the box back or they will charge me $150 for what (at best) is a three year old, $15 router.
I had max UVerse speeds and a phone line, both were costing me twice as much as anywhere else, and AT&T just added bandwidth caps. To my already overpriced, shitty service.
I know Comcast etc. and any big company are likely the same but this is a case where there should be some sort of laws designed to make it easy for people to cancel service. They certainly do everything possible to keep you from cancelling. If only they cared as much about the middle part, the time between when I get the service and when I cancel.
I've been trying not to sign up to any service where you can't cancel as easily as you can sign up., but in cases like this where they have such a monopoly they can force you to get a credit check before they'll give you service, it seems unlikely.
I realize that anyone can sue anyone for any reason (and does) in the US, but you'd expect the DOJ to set a better example in what cases it pursues and who reviews these cases to allow them to proceed to the point where the long arm of the US is used to arrest non-US citizens on foreign soil.
... the government was a single entity and not hundreds of thousands of individual groups populated by individuals, or if it was the USPTO or Congress that had done this.
The military, on the other hand, seems to operate almost independently of the law. While they can all be grouped as "government" I'm more inclined to blame this on the military "we can get away with anything, we get US$600B/y to do whatever" mentality than "The Government".
That's the thing I don't understand - a simple Google search would show no instances of Comodo using that and plenty of instances of EFF etc. using Let's Encrypt prior to the application, in the same security space. Does the USPTO not have a computer and internet connection? I must not be familiar enough with trademark law and/or confusing it with patent law. It'd be like me finding any business that has a name without an official trademark, filing a trademark application, getting the trademark, and then suing them and making them change their name even though they were clearly using it first. It makes no sense.