• ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    9 months ago

    It’s weird that they have to payout anything when they were hardly the first to monetize this way

    • xmunk@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      9 months ago

      What-about-ism is not a valid consideration for the law for very good reasons. I think we’d all be better off if more people in general could see through how petty of an argument it is.

      • 🇰 🔵 🇱 🇦 🇳 🇦 🇰 ℹ️@yiffit.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        Care to share some of those good reasons? And how the comment you replied to is a whataboutism? It’s not raising a new issue to distract from the topic; it’s asking why nobody else doing the same shit is being punished.

        • xmunk@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          edit-2
          9 months ago

          The comment above didn’t say “Hey, we should go after those other guys.” It pointed out that it’s weird for Epic to be punished when others weren’t. Epic broke the law - they were punished. Ideally everyone else who has done so should be pursued as well but whether or not they have been isn’t a reason to delay punishing Epic.

          This is classic what-about-ism (though I don’t think it was malicious just ill conceived) and, legally speaking it leads to a very serious mechanical problem. Lawsuits aren’t instantaneous or entirely predictable. If we wanted to pursue fossil fuel companies in court for environmental damages the absolute first thing they’ll all do is put PR pressure on the court system by pointing out how much less bad they are than their competitors - and its impossible for all of the big companies to be pursued precisely in sync… this pressure needs to be ignored by the legal system or it prevents the fair prosecution of anyone.