Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why would you voluntarily give protected financial info to Blake Lively? Some of you have lost all touch with reality.

Learn to read. No one suggested voluntarily giving financial info. The suggestion was that if you don't want your subscriber transaction being used to identify you, you could just provide your NAME to Lively's team so they know who you are. The whole point would be to keep your financial info out of it -- they couldn't justify asking for the financial info if you've already said "Hi I'm Joe Smith and I own the account @blakelivelyistheantichrist on X and I am the only person who posts to that account."

She wants the accounti info to trace payments, you are off on some weird tangent that makes no sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why would you voluntarily give protected financial info to Blake Lively? Some of you have lost all touch with reality.

Learn to read. No one suggested voluntarily giving financial info. The suggestion was that if you don't want your subscriber transaction being used to identify you, you could just provide your NAME to Lively's team so they know who you are. The whole point would be to keep your financial info out of it -- they couldn't justify asking for the financial info if you've already said "Hi I'm Joe Smith and I own the account @blakelivelyistheantichrist on X and I am the only person who posts to that account."

No one should have to give up their name. If it's not that big of a deal, tell us your own name.

This is truly an insane recommendation. I can't with you. You've jumped the shark.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just don’t think she’s seeking the discovery to expose the identities of these people. She’s seeking discovery to see if they were involved in the smear. If you were involved in the smear, you deserve to have your identity uncovered and be a witness and have your dep taken. Sorry not sorry.

But the self righteous concerns of the people making money off their newsy/smeary internet content is interesting given how many of those same people, and people here, totally thought the NYT should be liable for Baldoni’s $250M defamation suit against them in this case. First amendment protections are good for randos on the internet talking total made-up shit but let’s see if we can put a paper out of business because they printed the truth about some shady guy with a billionaire best friend okay. 👌

To be clear, she’s not seeking recovery against these randos if they printed lies about her but they came up with those lies by themselves. She’s seeking mere discovery/documents from these random yonder whether they were getting paid and were involved in a targeted smear campaign. These are not the droids you are looking for, but whatevs.

You can't just randomly subpoena any one who may have mentioned you in a negative way and get their financial info. Account numbers are protected financial info under multiple federal financial privacy laws. There has to be a direct, provable connection between the so-call scheme and each individual subpoena. A vague text non-specific to any particular individual isn't enough.

Further, you have argued the motion to dismiss Baldoni's defamation case was correctly decided. So, Blake and NY Times are entitled to First Amendment according to your thinking but not individual content creators.

But Lively is NOT just randomly subpoenaing any one who may have mentioned her in a negative way and seeking their financial info.

She is subpoenaing identifying info about a select group of content creators who have posted a large volume of negative content about her during a period of time when she knows Baldoni and Wayfarer appear to have contracted with TAG and Wallace to spread negative content about Lively online. And only the high volume creators, people who either posted a lot about Blake or whose content was liked, shared, and commented upon at a high volume. That's it. And she's not seeking access to their financial records, bank accounts, transaction records or similar protected info. She is seeking ONLY financial info that may help identify these individuals so that she may see if there are any links between them and Baldoni or his associates during this time. It's actually very narrow.

If you are one of these creators, one way to avoid your financial info being discovered is to voluntarily provide your identifying info to Lively's team. Then they wouldn't need to request subscriber info in order to identify you. You wouldn't even have to unmask yourself publicly, you could just disclose your identity directly to Lively so that she does not have to go through Google or X to obtain identifying info.

So your argument is “if you have nothing to hide just give your info to Blake”. Wow, that’s legit insane reasoning.

Providing your name, as a way to avoid having subscriber info subpoenaed, really doesn't sound invasive to me. It's certainly not "insane." It's what I would do if I were in their situation.

A name won't prove you weren't part of the smear. It's merely information Lively would use to subpoena more information about you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just don’t think she’s seeking the discovery to expose the identities of these people. She’s seeking discovery to see if they were involved in the smear. If you were involved in the smear, you deserve to have your identity uncovered and be a witness and have your dep taken. Sorry not sorry.

But the self righteous concerns of the people making money off their newsy/smeary internet content is interesting given how many of those same people, and people here, totally thought the NYT should be liable for Baldoni’s $250M defamation suit against them in this case. First amendment protections are good for randos on the internet talking total made-up shit but let’s see if we can put a paper out of business because they printed the truth about some shady guy with a billionaire best friend okay. 👌

To be clear, she’s not seeking recovery against these randos if they printed lies about her but they came up with those lies by themselves. She’s seeking mere discovery/documents from these random yonder whether they were getting paid and were involved in a targeted smear campaign. These are not the droids you are looking for, but whatevs.

You can't just randomly subpoena any one who may have mentioned you in a negative way and get their financial info. Account numbers are protected financial info under multiple federal financial privacy laws. There has to be a direct, provable connection between the so-call scheme and each individual subpoena. A vague text non-specific to any particular individual isn't enough.

Further, you have argued the motion to dismiss Baldoni's defamation case was correctly decided. So, Blake and NY Times are entitled to First Amendment according to your thinking but not individual content creators.

But Lively is NOT just randomly subpoenaing any one who may have mentioned her in a negative way and seeking their financial info.

She is subpoenaing identifying info about a select group of content creators who have posted a large volume of negative content about her during a period of time when she knows Baldoni and Wayfarer appear to have contracted with TAG and Wallace to spread negative content about Lively online. And only the high volume creators, people who either posted a lot about Blake or whose content was liked, shared, and commented upon at a high volume. That's it. And she's not seeking access to their financial records, bank accounts, transaction records or similar protected info. She is seeking ONLY financial info that may help identify these individuals so that she may see if there are any links between them and Baldoni or his associates during this time. It's actually very narrow.

If you are one of these creators, one way to avoid your financial info being discovered is to voluntarily provide your identifying info to Lively's team. Then they wouldn't need to request subscriber info in order to identify you. You wouldn't even have to unmask yourself publicly, you could just disclose your identity directly to Lively so that she does not have to go through Google or X to obtain identifying info.

So your argument is “if you have nothing to hide just give your info to Blake”. Wow, that’s legit insane reasoning.

Providing your name, as a way to avoid having subscriber info subpoenaed, really doesn't sound invasive to me. It's certainly not "insane." It's what I would do if I were in their situation.

It’s insane, period. She is not asking for just names in the subpoena. She is asking for names, account login dates, ISP data, associated bank info, etc.

So what would these creators gain from just providing a name? She won’t stop there. She wants to fish and they should just roll over and comply just because she suspects something? No, she needs to have a more legitimate cause than just suspecting them because of the type of content they post.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just don’t think she’s seeking the discovery to expose the identities of these people. She’s seeking discovery to see if they were involved in the smear. If you were involved in the smear, you deserve to have your identity uncovered and be a witness and have your dep taken. Sorry not sorry.

But the self righteous concerns of the people making money off their newsy/smeary internet content is interesting given how many of those same people, and people here, totally thought the NYT should be liable for Baldoni’s $250M defamation suit against them in this case. First amendment protections are good for randos on the internet talking total made-up shit but let’s see if we can put a paper out of business because they printed the truth about some shady guy with a billionaire best friend okay. 👌

To be clear, she’s not seeking recovery against these randos if they printed lies about her but they came up with those lies by themselves. She’s seeking mere discovery/documents from these random yonder whether they were getting paid and were involved in a targeted smear campaign. These are not the droids you are looking for, but whatevs.

You can't just randomly subpoena any one who may have mentioned you in a negative way and get their financial info. Account numbers are protected financial info under multiple federal financial privacy laws. There has to be a direct, provable connection between the so-call scheme and each individual subpoena. A vague text non-specific to any particular individual isn't enough.

Further, you have argued the motion to dismiss Baldoni's defamation case was correctly decided. So, Blake and NY Times are entitled to First Amendment according to your thinking but not individual content creators.

But Lively is NOT just randomly subpoenaing any one who may have mentioned her in a negative way and seeking their financial info.

She is subpoenaing identifying info about a select group of content creators who have posted a large volume of negative content about her during a period of time when she knows Baldoni and Wayfarer appear to have contracted with TAG and Wallace to spread negative content about Lively online. And only the high volume creators, people who either posted a lot about Blake or whose content was liked, shared, and commented upon at a high volume. That's it. And she's not seeking access to their financial records, bank accounts, transaction records or similar protected info. She is seeking ONLY financial info that may help identify these individuals so that she may see if there are any links between them and Baldoni or his associates during this time. It's actually very narrow.

If you are one of these creators, one way to avoid your financial info being discovered is to voluntarily provide your identifying info to Lively's team. Then they wouldn't need to request subscriber info in order to identify you. You wouldn't even have to unmask yourself publicly, you could just disclose your identity directly to Lively so that she does not have to go through Google or X to obtain identifying info.

So your argument is “if you have nothing to hide just give your info to Blake”. Wow, that’s legit insane reasoning.

Providing your name, as a way to avoid having subscriber info subpoenaed, really doesn't sound invasive to me. It's certainly not "insane." It's what I would do if I were in their situation.

A name won't prove you weren't part of the smear. It's merely information Lively would use to subpoena more information about you.

Right? "Oh, they gave me their name. OK. I'll leave you alone!"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just don’t think she’s seeking the discovery to expose the identities of these people. She’s seeking discovery to see if they were involved in the smear. If you were involved in the smear, you deserve to have your identity uncovered and be a witness and have your dep taken. Sorry not sorry.

But the self righteous concerns of the people making money off their newsy/smeary internet content is interesting given how many of those same people, and people here, totally thought the NYT should be liable for Baldoni’s $250M defamation suit against them in this case. First amendment protections are good for randos on the internet talking total made-up shit but let’s see if we can put a paper out of business because they printed the truth about some shady guy with a billionaire best friend okay. 👌

To be clear, she’s not seeking recovery against these randos if they printed lies about her but they came up with those lies by themselves. She’s seeking mere discovery/documents from these random yonder whether they were getting paid and were involved in a targeted smear campaign. These are not the droids you are looking for, but whatevs.

You can't just randomly subpoena any one who may have mentioned you in a negative way and get their financial info. Account numbers are protected financial info under multiple federal financial privacy laws. There has to be a direct, provable connection between the so-call scheme and each individual subpoena. A vague text non-specific to any particular individual isn't enough.

Further, you have argued the motion to dismiss Baldoni's defamation case was correctly decided. So, Blake and NY Times are entitled to First Amendment according to your thinking but not individual content creators.

But Lively is NOT just randomly subpoenaing any one who may have mentioned her in a negative way and seeking their financial info.

She is subpoenaing identifying info about a select group of content creators who have posted a large volume of negative content about her during a period of time when she knows Baldoni and Wayfarer appear to have contracted with TAG and Wallace to spread negative content about Lively online. And only the high volume creators, people who either posted a lot about Blake or whose content was liked, shared, and commented upon at a high volume. That's it. And she's not seeking access to their financial records, bank accounts, transaction records or similar protected info. She is seeking ONLY financial info that may help identify these individuals so that she may see if there are any links between them and Baldoni or his associates during this time. It's actually very narrow.

If you are one of these creators, one way to avoid your financial info being discovered is to voluntarily provide your identifying info to Lively's team. Then they wouldn't need to request subscriber info in order to identify you. You wouldn't even have to unmask yourself publicly, you could just disclose your identity directly to Lively so that she does not have to go through Google or X to obtain identifying info.

You are posting your speculation as fact. Several of the content creators did not start posting about the case until 2025. There has been no explanation by Lively’s team of the reasons.

2025 is within the time frame that Lively's team is looking at, as outlined in their complaint and in other discovery requests. They are not required to explain their reasons to the general public, but they will be required to explain their reasons to the subpoenaed entity (here, Google and X) and the lawyers for those entities can make objections as to relevancy if they wish.

Yes I am speculating as to Lively's team's thinking but so are others. But I'm not speculating about the kind of financial info being sought -- they are only looking to identify these creators through their platforms, and thus the only financial info they can possibly be requesting is bank account info linked to transactions with the platforms. If Lively was pursuing other banking info like financial records, transaction records, etc., she'd have to subpoena the banks of the creators directly. Google and X don't even have this information. Also, she'd have to explain why she wanted it and be able to show a high degree of relevance because of the sensitivity of the info sought. Whereas asking for subscriber info that helps identify the legal name on an account, where Google or X could easily redact actual bank account numbers, is much less sensitive.

She claims the smear is "ongoing" but the referenced period "during a period of time when she knows Baldoni and Wayfarer appear to have contracted with TAG and Wallace to spread negative content about Lively online" is from 2024, well before many of these creators were involved.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why would you voluntarily give protected financial info to Blake Lively? Some of you have lost all touch with reality.

Learn to read. No one suggested voluntarily giving financial info. The suggestion was that if you don't want your subscriber transaction being used to identify you, you could just provide your NAME to Lively's team so they know who you are. The whole point would be to keep your financial info out of it -- they couldn't justify asking for the financial info if you've already said "Hi I'm Joe Smith and I own the account @blakelivelyistheantichrist on X and I am the only person who posts to that account."

If pro-BLers are going to keep posting this, I'm not going to stop asking you guys from revealing your own names.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just don’t think she’s seeking the discovery to expose the identities of these people. She’s seeking discovery to see if they were involved in the smear. If you were involved in the smear, you deserve to have your identity uncovered and be a witness and have your dep taken. Sorry not sorry.

But the self righteous concerns of the people making money off their newsy/smeary internet content is interesting given how many of those same people, and people here, totally thought the NYT should be liable for Baldoni’s $250M defamation suit against them in this case. First amendment protections are good for randos on the internet talking total made-up shit but let’s see if we can put a paper out of business because they printed the truth about some shady guy with a billionaire best friend okay. 👌

To be clear, she’s not seeking recovery against these randos if they printed lies about her but they came up with those lies by themselves. She’s seeking mere discovery/documents from these random yonder whether they were getting paid and were involved in a targeted smear campaign. These are not the droids you are looking for, but whatevs.

You can't just randomly subpoena any one who may have mentioned you in a negative way and get their financial info. Account numbers are protected financial info under multiple federal financial privacy laws. There has to be a direct, provable connection between the so-call scheme and each individual subpoena. A vague text non-specific to any particular individual isn't enough.

Further, you have argued the motion to dismiss Baldoni's defamation case was correctly decided. So, Blake and NY Times are entitled to First Amendment according to your thinking but not individual content creators.

But Lively is NOT just randomly subpoenaing any one who may have mentioned her in a negative way and seeking their financial info.

She is subpoenaing identifying info about a select group of content creators who have posted a large volume of negative content about her during a period of time when she knows Baldoni and Wayfarer appear to have contracted with TAG and Wallace to spread negative content about Lively online. And only the high volume creators, people who either posted a lot about Blake or whose content was liked, shared, and commented upon at a high volume. That's it. And she's not seeking access to their financial records, bank accounts, transaction records or similar protected info. She is seeking ONLY financial info that may help identify these individuals so that she may see if there are any links between them and Baldoni or his associates during this time. It's actually very narrow.

If you are one of these creators, one way to avoid your financial info being discovered is to voluntarily provide your identifying info to Lively's team. Then they wouldn't need to request subscriber info in order to identify you. You wouldn't even have to unmask yourself publicly, you could just disclose your identity directly to Lively so that she does not have to go through Google or X to obtain identifying info.

So your argument is “if you have nothing to hide just give your info to Blake”. Wow, that’s legit insane reasoning.

Providing your name, as a way to avoid having subscriber info subpoenaed, really doesn't sound invasive to me. It's certainly not "insane." It's what I would do if I were in their situation.

A name won't prove you weren't part of the smear. It's merely information Lively would use to subpoena more information about you.

Right? "Oh, they gave me their name. OK. I'll leave you alone!"

Insanity. Some of them already have published names through media articles and their own content and she isn’t stopping.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just don’t think she’s seeking the discovery to expose the identities of these people. She’s seeking discovery to see if they were involved in the smear. If you were involved in the smear, you deserve to have your identity uncovered and be a witness and have your dep taken. Sorry not sorry.

But the self righteous concerns of the people making money off their newsy/smeary internet content is interesting given how many of those same people, and people here, totally thought the NYT should be liable for Baldoni’s $250M defamation suit against them in this case. First amendment protections are good for randos on the internet talking total made-up shit but let’s see if we can put a paper out of business because they printed the truth about some shady guy with a billionaire best friend okay. 👌

To be clear, she’s not seeking recovery against these randos if they printed lies about her but they came up with those lies by themselves. She’s seeking mere discovery/documents from these random yonder whether they were getting paid and were involved in a targeted smear campaign. These are not the droids you are looking for, but whatevs.

You can't just randomly subpoena any one who may have mentioned you in a negative way and get their financial info. Account numbers are protected financial info under multiple federal financial privacy laws. There has to be a direct, provable connection between the so-call scheme and each individual subpoena. A vague text non-specific to any particular individual isn't enough.

Further, you have argued the motion to dismiss Baldoni's defamation case was correctly decided. So, Blake and NY Times are entitled to First Amendment according to your thinking but not individual content creators.

But Lively is NOT just randomly subpoenaing any one who may have mentioned her in a negative way and seeking their financial info.

She is subpoenaing identifying info about a select group of content creators who have posted a large volume of negative content about her during a period of time when she knows Baldoni and Wayfarer appear to have contracted with TAG and Wallace to spread negative content about Lively online. And only the high volume creators, people who either posted a lot about Blake or whose content was liked, shared, and commented upon at a high volume. That's it. And she's not seeking access to their financial records, bank accounts, transaction records or similar protected info. She is seeking ONLY financial info that may help identify these individuals so that she may see if there are any links between them and Baldoni or his associates during this time. It's actually very narrow.

If you are one of these creators, one way to avoid your financial info being discovered is to voluntarily provide your identifying info to Lively's team. Then they wouldn't need to request subscriber info in order to identify you. You wouldn't even have to unmask yourself publicly, you could just disclose your identity directly to Lively so that she does not have to go through Google or X to obtain identifying info.

So your argument is “if you have nothing to hide just give your info to Blake”. Wow, that’s legit insane reasoning.

Providing your name, as a way to avoid having subscriber info subpoenaed, really doesn't sound invasive to me. It's certainly not "insane." It's what I would do if I were in their situation.

It’s insane, period. She is not asking for just names in the subpoena. She is asking for names, account login dates, ISP data, associated bank info, etc.

So what would these creators gain from just providing a name? She won’t stop there. She wants to fish and they should just roll over and comply just because she suspects something? No, she needs to have a more legitimate cause than just suspecting them because of the type of content they post.

They should have to take lie detector tests to prove their opinions are really organic! If they nothing to hide what's the problem? Lively will host it at Manatt's office and serve lunch!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just don’t think she’s seeking the discovery to expose the identities of these people. She’s seeking discovery to see if they were involved in the smear. If you were involved in the smear, you deserve to have your identity uncovered and be a witness and have your dep taken. Sorry not sorry.

But the self righteous concerns of the people making money off their newsy/smeary internet content is interesting given how many of those same people, and people here, totally thought the NYT should be liable for Baldoni’s $250M defamation suit against them in this case. First amendment protections are good for randos on the internet talking total made-up shit but let’s see if we can put a paper out of business because they printed the truth about some shady guy with a billionaire best friend okay. 👌

To be clear, she’s not seeking recovery against these randos if they printed lies about her but they came up with those lies by themselves. She’s seeking mere discovery/documents from these random yonder whether they were getting paid and were involved in a targeted smear campaign. These are not the droids you are looking for, but whatevs.

You can't just randomly subpoena any one who may have mentioned you in a negative way and get their financial info. Account numbers are protected financial info under multiple federal financial privacy laws. There has to be a direct, provable connection between the so-call scheme and each individual subpoena. A vague text non-specific to any particular individual isn't enough.

Further, you have argued the motion to dismiss Baldoni's defamation case was correctly decided. So, Blake and NY Times are entitled to First Amendment according to your thinking but not individual content creators.

But Lively is NOT just randomly subpoenaing any one who may have mentioned her in a negative way and seeking their financial info.

She is subpoenaing identifying info about a select group of content creators who have posted a large volume of negative content about her during a period of time when she knows Baldoni and Wayfarer appear to have contracted with TAG and Wallace to spread negative content about Lively online. And only the high volume creators, people who either posted a lot about Blake or whose content was liked, shared, and commented upon at a high volume. That's it. And she's not seeking access to their financial records, bank accounts, transaction records or similar protected info. She is seeking ONLY financial info that may help identify these individuals so that she may see if there are any links between them and Baldoni or his associates during this time. It's actually very narrow.

If you are one of these creators, one way to avoid your financial info being discovered is to voluntarily provide your identifying info to Lively's team. Then they wouldn't need to request subscriber info in order to identify you. You wouldn't even have to unmask yourself publicly, you could just disclose your identity directly to Lively so that she does not have to go through Google or X to obtain identifying info.

So your argument is “if you have nothing to hide just give your info to Blake”. Wow, that’s legit insane reasoning.

Providing your name, as a way to avoid having subscriber info subpoenaed, really doesn't sound invasive to me. It's certainly not "insane." It's what I would do if I were in their situation.

It’s insane, period. She is not asking for just names in the subpoena. She is asking for names, account login dates, ISP data, associated bank info, etc.

So what would these creators gain from just providing a name? She won’t stop there. She wants to fish and they should just roll over and comply just because she suspects something? No, she needs to have a more legitimate cause than just suspecting them because of the type of content they post.

They should have to take lie detector tests to prove their opinions are really organic! If they nothing to hide what's the problem? Lively will host it at Manatt's office and serve lunch!

And if they pass the lie detector tests it’s because Jed trained them so it would remain untraceable 😂

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just don’t think she’s seeking the discovery to expose the identities of these people. She’s seeking discovery to see if they were involved in the smear. If you were involved in the smear, you deserve to have your identity uncovered and be a witness and have your dep taken. Sorry not sorry.

But the self righteous concerns of the people making money off their newsy/smeary internet content is interesting given how many of those same people, and people here, totally thought the NYT should be liable for Baldoni’s $250M defamation suit against them in this case. First amendment protections are good for randos on the internet talking total made-up shit but let’s see if we can put a paper out of business because they printed the truth about some shady guy with a billionaire best friend okay. 👌

To be clear, she’s not seeking recovery against these randos if they printed lies about her but they came up with those lies by themselves. She’s seeking mere discovery/documents from these random yonder whether they were getting paid and were involved in a targeted smear campaign. These are not the droids you are looking for, but whatevs.

You can't just randomly subpoena any one who may have mentioned you in a negative way and get their financial info. Account numbers are protected financial info under multiple federal financial privacy laws. There has to be a direct, provable connection between the so-call scheme and each individual subpoena. A vague text non-specific to any particular individual isn't enough.

Further, you have argued the motion to dismiss Baldoni's defamation case was correctly decided. So, Blake and NY Times are entitled to First Amendment according to your thinking but not individual content creators.

But Lively is NOT just randomly subpoenaing any one who may have mentioned her in a negative way and seeking their financial info.

She is subpoenaing identifying info about a select group of content creators who have posted a large volume of negative content about her during a period of time when she knows Baldoni and Wayfarer appear to have contracted with TAG and Wallace to spread negative content about Lively online. And only the high volume creators, people who either posted a lot about Blake or whose content was liked, shared, and commented upon at a high volume. That's it. And she's not seeking access to their financial records, bank accounts, transaction records or similar protected info. She is seeking ONLY financial info that may help identify these individuals so that she may see if there are any links between them and Baldoni or his associates during this time. It's actually very narrow.

If you are one of these creators, one way to avoid your financial info being discovered is to voluntarily provide your identifying info to Lively's team. Then they wouldn't need to request subscriber info in order to identify you. You wouldn't even have to unmask yourself publicly, you could just disclose your identity directly to Lively so that she does not have to go through Google or X to obtain identifying info.

So your argument is “if you have nothing to hide just give your info to Blake”. Wow, that’s legit insane reasoning.

Providing your name, as a way to avoid having subscriber info subpoenaed, really doesn't sound invasive to me. It's certainly not "insane." It's what I would do if I were in their situation.

It’s insane, period. She is not asking for just names in the subpoena. She is asking for names, account login dates, ISP data, associated bank info, etc.

So what would these creators gain from just providing a name? She won’t stop there. She wants to fish and they should just roll over and comply just because she suspects something? No, she needs to have a more legitimate cause than just suspecting them because of the type of content they post.

They should have to take lie detector tests to prove their opinions are really organic! If they nothing to hide what's the problem? Lively will host it at Manatt's office and serve lunch!

And if they pass the lie detector tests it’s because Jed trained them so it would remain untraceable 😂

The butt clenching trick from the Americans.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why would you voluntarily give protected financial info to Blake Lively? Some of you have lost all touch with reality.

Learn to read. No one suggested voluntarily giving financial info. The suggestion was that if you don't want your subscriber transaction being used to identify you, you could just provide your NAME to Lively's team so they know who you are. The whole point would be to keep your financial info out of it -- they couldn't justify asking for the financial info if you've already said "Hi I'm Joe Smith and I own the account @blakelivelyistheantichrist on X and I am the only person who posts to that account."

Are you intentionally ignoring what’s been confirmed to be within the subpoenas? She doesn’t just want a name to identify content creators behind these accounts.

A subpoena to Google dated July 3 and obtained by DailyMail.com demands that at least 16 content creators turn over their email, phone number, physical address and payment details for their premium accounts - including credit card or bank account numbers, blockchain addresses and a log of every session they've had since May 1, 2024, with exact dates and times.

[Anonymous]

I now ascribe to the Quantity Theory of Good Places to Debate This Case, whereby all over the world, from minute to minute, there is generally only one decent place for useful exchange of ideas on this lawsuit and it will switch around among those places from minute to minute. So at most places, for most of the day, debate is uniformly terrible, except for the 3-4 minutes/day when useful conversation could be had.

I just wish there was a schedule!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I now ascribe to the Quantity Theory of Good Places to Debate This Case, whereby all over the world, from minute to minute, there is generally only one decent place for useful exchange of ideas on this lawsuit and it will switch around among those places from minute to minute. So at most places, for most of the day, debate is uniformly terrible, except for the 3-4 minutes/day when useful conversation could be had.

I just wish there was a schedule!

I know you’re going to report this comment, but shut up. Just shut up. People are calling you out for the insane comments you’re making and you can’t take it by going on these tangents about how you hate this thread and opine about where you can discuss this case with true intellects such as yourself, the woman who doesn’t know the definition of the word “offer.”

[Anonymous]

Here's One Top Trick To Avoid Getting Doxxed: Just give up all the information yourself!

Don't want someone to obtain your name and your bank account information? They can't subpoena you if you give it to them!