Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Sarora's avatar

How to fix the internet: "The big idea is that in a future where social media is more decentralized, users will be able to easily switch networks without losing their content and followings. “As an individual, if you see [hate speech], you can just leave, and you’re not leaving your entire community—your entire online life—behind. You can just move to another server and migrate all your contacts, and it should be okay,” says Paige Collings, a senior speech and privacy advocate at the Electronic Frontier Foundation. “And I think that’s probably where we have a lot of opportunity to get it right.” "

We should all offer extra coffee to Paige Collings. Grasping has been an important part of my online life/education since it's early days. I must confess that whenever I said that "I will leave" if hate speech proliferated here or on Substack in general, I always felt a bit of "golly, what am I gonna do then?" It is good to know that Brad may have the capability to take the entire ship elsewhere.

Tom Aldrich's avatar

Retired corporate lawyer here. Concerning Trump’s interpretation of the meaning of “intend,” I’m not saying that he is correct in this case, but there are situations in contract drafting where “intend” is in fact used to identify a course of action that the parties hope will come to pass, and that they will make a good-faith effort to cause to come to pass, without creating an enforceable obligation to make it happen. That’s the idea with a “non-binding letter of intent” or a “memorandum of understanding” that parties use as a preliminary to the definitive agreement in all kinds of transactional settings, e.g., real estate development, mergers & acquisitions.

Alternatively, parties can also use a statement of intent to identify their mutual understanding of what the agreement, which is in fact definitive, means, as an aid to future interpretation, whether by the parties, their successors, or a court. In this specific case, it sounds like this was some kind of conservation easement, in which the only party with any kind of ongoing obligation was Trump and his entities, and the obligation was intended to be enforceable in favor of the grantee (the conservation trust).

I haven’t seen this distinction discussed anywhere, so I am pointing it out. I don’t think Trump’s interpretation is correct in this situation, but what he is saying is the kind of thing that I would expect a real-estate development guy to say, but, I hope, only in the appropriate context.

6 more comments...

No posts

Ready for more?