Lively/Baldoni Lawsuit Part 2

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's some funny, adjacent news: Rolling Stone just wrote an claiming that bots were responsible for the backlash Taylor Swift has been facing amid her latest album rollout.

For example, she faced claims that one of her necklaces was a n*zi dogwhistle. Ridiculous, yes, but the article tries to absolve her of all backlash and neglected to mention that these rumors wouldn't have persisted if she weren't so silent on issues. You don't see pop stars like, say, Olivia Rodrigo and Sabrina Carpenter have these rumors follow them around because they quickly condemned their music being used in ICE ads, etc.

Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni got mentioned in there, but Taylor has a lot of genuine haters, so you got a lot of resistance to that article. No one likes being condescended to and told their feelings for Taylor, which they've had for a while, was the result of bots. So backlash ensues, people dig up the company that Rolling Stone cited, and it turns out it's a crisis AI firm called GUDEA who's pushing this narrative. lmao.

The pro-Blake people look so stupid right now.

Glad to know we can stop accusing everyone of being a bot since you have declared it impossible that anyone ever could be misled by bots. It’s all just a bunch of bored chronically online haters. Not sure which is worse.

I think everyone is polarized by the internet, but the argument the pro-Blake morons are making is that Baldoni supporters have been uniquely and solely manipulated by bots, even though we've seen hate trains against multiple celebs in recent years. Is the Sydney Sweeney backlash bot-driven? Is the JLo hate train bot-driven? Quentin Tarantino insulted Paul Dano, and now everyone is bringing up his Zionist ties, support of Roman Polanski and foot fetish. Was this a hate campaign mobilized by Paul Dano?

Where did you get this “uniquely and solely” theory? Let’s see some evidence of this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's some funny, adjacent news: Rolling Stone just wrote an claiming that bots were responsible for the backlash Taylor Swift has been facing amid her latest album rollout.

For example, she faced claims that one of her necklaces was a n*zi dogwhistle. Ridiculous, yes, but the article tries to absolve her of all backlash and neglected to mention that these rumors wouldn't have persisted if she weren't so silent on issues. You don't see pop stars like, say, Olivia Rodrigo and Sabrina Carpenter have these rumors follow them around because they quickly condemned their music being used in ICE ads, etc.

Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni got mentioned in there, but Taylor has a lot of genuine haters, so you got a lot of resistance to that article. No one likes being condescended to and told their feelings for Taylor, which they've had for a while, was the result of bots. So backlash ensues, people dig up the company that Rolling Stone cited, and it turns out it's a crisis AI firm called GUDEA who's pushing this narrative. lmao.

The pro-Blake people look so stupid right now.

Glad to know we can stop accusing everyone of being a bot since you have declared it impossible that anyone ever could be misled by bots. It’s all just a bunch of bored chronically online haters. Not sure which is worse.

I think everyone is polarized by the internet, but the argument the pro-Blake morons are making is that Baldoni supporters have been uniquely and solely manipulated by bots, even though we've seen hate trains against multiple celebs in recent years. Is the Sydney Sweeney backlash bot-driven? Is the JLo hate train bot-driven? Quentin Tarantino insulted Paul Dano, and now everyone is bringing up his Zionist ties, support of Roman Polanski and foot fetish. Was this a hate campaign mobilized by Paul Dano?

Why do you think any of them are real people? They are accused of being nothing but bots. Are you getting worked up about arguing with bots? Maybe just stop doing it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's some funny, adjacent news: Rolling Stone just wrote an claiming that bots were responsible for the backlash Taylor Swift has been facing amid her latest album rollout.

For example, she faced claims that one of her necklaces was a n*zi dogwhistle. Ridiculous, yes, but the article tries to absolve her of all backlash and neglected to mention that these rumors wouldn't have persisted if she weren't so silent on issues. You don't see pop stars like, say, Olivia Rodrigo and Sabrina Carpenter have these rumors follow them around because they quickly condemned their music being used in ICE ads, etc.

Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni got mentioned in there, but Taylor has a lot of genuine haters, so you got a lot of resistance to that article. No one likes being condescended to and told their feelings for Taylor, which they've had for a while, was the result of bots. So backlash ensues, people dig up the company that Rolling Stone cited, and it turns out it's a crisis AI firm called GUDEA who's pushing this narrative. lmao.

The pro-Blake people look so stupid right now.

Glad to know we can stop accusing everyone of being a bot since you have declared it impossible that anyone ever could be misled by bots. It’s all just a bunch of bored chronically online haters. Not sure which is worse.

I think everyone is polarized by the internet, but the argument the pro-Blake morons are making is that Baldoni supporters have been uniquely and solely manipulated by bots, even though we've seen hate trains against multiple celebs in recent years. Is the Sydney Sweeney backlash bot-driven? Is the JLo hate train bot-driven? Quentin Tarantino insulted Paul Dano, and now everyone is bringing up his Zionist ties, support of Roman Polanski and foot fetish. Was this a hate campaign mobilized by Paul Dano?

Where did you get this “uniquely and solely” theory? Let’s see some evidence of this.

Do you think the Sydney Sweeney, Jennifer Lopez and Quentin Tarantino backlash we're seeing right now is bot-driven, yes or no?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's some funny, adjacent news: Rolling Stone just wrote an claiming that bots were responsible for the backlash Taylor Swift has been facing amid her latest album rollout.

For example, she faced claims that one of her necklaces was a n*zi dogwhistle. Ridiculous, yes, but the article tries to absolve her of all backlash and neglected to mention that these rumors wouldn't have persisted if she weren't so silent on issues. You don't see pop stars like, say, Olivia Rodrigo and Sabrina Carpenter have these rumors follow them around because they quickly condemned their music being used in ICE ads, etc.

Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni got mentioned in there, but Taylor has a lot of genuine haters, so you got a lot of resistance to that article. No one likes being condescended to and told their feelings for Taylor, which they've had for a while, was the result of bots. So backlash ensues, people dig up the company that Rolling Stone cited, and it turns out it's a crisis AI firm called GUDEA who's pushing this narrative. lmao.

The pro-Blake people look so stupid right now.

Glad to know we can stop accusing everyone of being a bot since you have declared it impossible that anyone ever could be misled by bots. It’s all just a bunch of bored chronically online haters. Not sure which is worse.

I think everyone is polarized by the internet, but the argument the pro-Blake morons are making is that Baldoni supporters have been uniquely and solely manipulated by bots, even though we've seen hate trains against multiple celebs in recent years. Is the Sydney Sweeney backlash bot-driven? Is the JLo hate train bot-driven? Quentin Tarantino insulted Paul Dano, and now everyone is bringing up his Zionist ties, support of Roman Polanski and foot fetish. Was this a hate campaign mobilized by Paul Dano?

Where did you get this “uniquely and solely” theory? Let’s see some evidence of this.

Do you think the Sydney Sweeney, Jennifer Lopez and Quentin Tarantino backlash we're seeing right now is bot-driven, yes or no?

DP and I'm not even aware of any of those, just Sweeney from months ago with the eugenics ad or whatever.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's some funny, adjacent news: Rolling Stone just wrote an claiming that bots were responsible for the backlash Taylor Swift has been facing amid her latest album rollout.

For example, she faced claims that one of her necklaces was a n*zi dogwhistle. Ridiculous, yes, but the article tries to absolve her of all backlash and neglected to mention that these rumors wouldn't have persisted if she weren't so silent on issues. You don't see pop stars like, say, Olivia Rodrigo and Sabrina Carpenter have these rumors follow them around because they quickly condemned their music being used in ICE ads, etc.

Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni got mentioned in there, but Taylor has a lot of genuine haters, so you got a lot of resistance to that article. No one likes being condescended to and told their feelings for Taylor, which they've had for a while, was the result of bots. So backlash ensues, people dig up the company that Rolling Stone cited, and it turns out it's a crisis AI firm called GUDEA who's pushing this narrative. lmao.

The pro-Blake people look so stupid right now.

Glad to know we can stop accusing everyone of being a bot since you have declared it impossible that anyone ever could be misled by bots. It’s all just a bunch of bored chronically online haters. Not sure which is worse.

I think everyone is polarized by the internet, but the argument the pro-Blake morons are making is that Baldoni supporters have been uniquely and solely manipulated by bots, even though we've seen hate trains against multiple celebs in recent years. Is the Sydney Sweeney backlash bot-driven? Is the JLo hate train bot-driven? Quentin Tarantino insulted Paul Dano, and now everyone is bringing up his Zionist ties, support of Roman Polanski and foot fetish. Was this a hate campaign mobilized by Paul Dano?

Where did you get this “uniquely and solely” theory? Let’s see some evidence of this.

Do you think the Sydney Sweeney, Jennifer Lopez and Quentin Tarantino backlash we're seeing right now is bot-driven, yes or no?

What are you even talking about? This is not the biggest news of the day. Zero clue why any of them would be in the news.

[Anonymous]

Anyway, I don't think the argument was TAG using bots to comment. They denied bots that but told Baldoni they were "doing something very specific in terms of what they do." My guess is they had actual fake accounts on reddit (shills, not bots) and some SEO tech to boost certain articles online (this is described in Jones' expert report). There are real time texts between Case and others, reacting during the crisis, sending things to Jed to be boosted and bragging he did a good job. There are texts talking about "we didn't write that article, but if they were talking about comments then maybe lol." That's Wayfarer/TAG people saying that, not Lively. I don't know if Lively will find enough evidence to prove what those things were and the scope of them. I hope so because I want to know more about how this stuff works.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Anyway, I don't think the argument was TAG using bots to comment. They denied bots that but told Baldoni they were "doing something very specific in terms of what they do." My guess is they had actual fake accounts on reddit (shills, not bots) and some SEO tech to boost certain articles online (this is described in Jones' expert report). There are real time texts between Case and others, reacting during the crisis, sending things to Jed to be boosted and bragging he did a good job. There are texts talking about "we didn't write that article, but if they were talking about comments then maybe lol." That's Wayfarer/TAG people saying that, not Lively. I don't know if Lively will find enough evidence to prove what those things were and the scope of them. I hope so because I want to know more about how this stuff works.

There hasn’t been a specific example by Lively of an article containing falsehoods about her that was boosted, or even a example of such an article.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Anyway, I don't think the argument was TAG using bots to comment. They denied bots that but told Baldoni they were "doing something very specific in terms of what they do." My guess is they had actual fake accounts on reddit (shills, not bots) and some SEO tech to boost certain articles online (this is described in Jones' expert report). There are real time texts between Case and others, reacting during the crisis, sending things to Jed to be boosted and bragging he did a good job. There are texts talking about "we didn't write that article, but if they were talking about comments then maybe lol." That's Wayfarer/TAG people saying that, not Lively. I don't know if Lively will find enough evidence to prove what those things were and the scope of them. I hope so because I want to know more about how this stuff works.

Yeah, I thought Case and TAG were saying some of the commenting on the stories was TAG or TAG-induced.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyway, I don't think the argument was TAG using bots to comment. They denied bots that but told Baldoni they were "doing something very specific in terms of what they do." My guess is they had actual fake accounts on reddit (shills, not bots) and some SEO tech to boost certain articles online (this is described in Jones' expert report). There are real time texts between Case and others, reacting during the crisis, sending things to Jed to be boosted and bragging he did a good job. There are texts talking about "we didn't write that article, but if they were talking about comments then maybe lol." That's Wayfarer/TAG people saying that, not Lively. I don't know if Lively will find enough evidence to prove what those things were and the scope of them. I hope so because I want to know more about how this stuff works.

There hasn’t been a specific example by Lively of an article containing falsehoods about her that was boosted, or even a example of such an article.

Agreed, but she only has that one claim for defamation regarding Freedman. She's not claiming the other stories were false, but retaliatory, which is some clever lawyering and perhaps a stretch but has not been challenged. It would be like if a woman complained about SH and her bosses spread (true) gossip about her personal life and mistakes she'd made at work, to destroy her credibility. It could work, but the jury may be looking for falsehoods. Maybe Lively will ask for a ruling that WF can't make that argument.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyway, I don't think the argument was TAG using bots to comment. They denied bots that but told Baldoni they were "doing something very specific in terms of what they do." My guess is they had actual fake accounts on reddit (shills, not bots) and some SEO tech to boost certain articles online (this is described in Jones' expert report). There are real time texts between Case and others, reacting during the crisis, sending things to Jed to be boosted and bragging he did a good job. There are texts talking about "we didn't write that article, but if they were talking about comments then maybe lol." That's Wayfarer/TAG people saying that, not Lively. I don't know if Lively will find enough evidence to prove what those things were and the scope of them. I hope so because I want to know more about how this stuff works.

There hasn’t been a specific example by Lively of an article containing falsehoods about her that was boosted, or even a example of such an article.

Agreed, but she only has that one claim for defamation regarding Freedman. She's not claiming the other stories were false, but retaliatory, which is some clever lawyering and perhaps a stretch but has not been challenged. It would be like if a woman complained about SH and her bosses spread (true) gossip about her personal life and mistakes she'd made at work, to destroy her credibility. It could work, but the jury may be looking for falsehoods. Maybe Lively will ask for a ruling that WF can't make that argument.

Hasn’t been challenged? WF makes this argument in their summary judgment briefing—she hasn’t alleged a single falsehood made by any defendant in the course of the “smear” campaign.

[Anonymous]

The problem has is that a lot of what people were picking up on was her own behavior. This movie had a lot of eyes on it because of Colleen Hoover.

There was so much exploding about this movie before any of the tensions with Blake and Justin gained - as soon as fans saw the first shots in the early days of filming there was a ton of online criticism about Blake - the outfits and about the overall casting. Fans are really attached to this character, and they thought she was portraying her wrong.

I feel bad for her about that, but then when the promotion was happening, a lot of people were sincerely annoyed about the booze line promotions, her flippant comments about DV, the hair product pop-ups being promoted along with the movie.

And then people were really turned off by Justin being cut out of things. He has 4 million followers. I personally had not heard of him before all this, but you don’t get 4 million followers without having a lot of fans.

That’s the issue I have with this smear campaign. A lot of of what she did pissed people off organically. Then to find out that the baby bump video was not caused by Justin at all, which I firmly believe because they found no evidence, but also because I still don’t understand how on earth his team would have known to contact an obscure foreign fashion journalist and say hey do you have any past videos of Blake lively looking bad? It just doesn’t make sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyway, I don't think the argument was TAG using bots to comment. They denied bots that but told Baldoni they were "doing something very specific in terms of what they do." My guess is they had actual fake accounts on reddit (shills, not bots) and some SEO tech to boost certain articles online (this is described in Jones' expert report). There are real time texts between Case and others, reacting during the crisis, sending things to Jed to be boosted and bragging he did a good job. There are texts talking about "we didn't write that article, but if they were talking about comments then maybe lol." That's Wayfarer/TAG people saying that, not Lively. I don't know if Lively will find enough evidence to prove what those things were and the scope of them. I hope so because I want to know more about how this stuff works.

There hasn’t been a specific example by Lively of an article containing falsehoods about her that was boosted, or even a example of such an article.

Why would you pay someone to spread stories, even if true, that make your employee look bad? What do you call that and why would you pay someone to help you do it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyway, I don't think the argument was TAG using bots to comment. They denied bots that but told Baldoni they were "doing something very specific in terms of what they do." My guess is they had actual fake accounts on reddit (shills, not bots) and some SEO tech to boost certain articles online (this is described in Jones' expert report). There are real time texts between Case and others, reacting during the crisis, sending things to Jed to be boosted and bragging he did a good job. There are texts talking about "we didn't write that article, but if they were talking about comments then maybe lol." That's Wayfarer/TAG people saying that, not Lively. I don't know if Lively will find enough evidence to prove what those things were and the scope of them. I hope so because I want to know more about how this stuff works.

There hasn’t been a specific example by Lively of an article containing falsehoods about her that was boosted, or even a example of such an article.

Why would you pay someone to spread stories, even if true, that make your employee look bad? What do you call that and why would you pay someone to help you do it?

She wasn’t their employee, and what you describe is not a “smear.”

[Anonymous]

WF notes in their summary judgment response that they have sealed very little while in Lively’s response nearly everything is sealed. The response further notes that her own evidence contradicts her claims and the pervasive sealing suggests awareness that it would not survive public scrutiny.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyway, I don't think the argument was TAG using bots to comment. They denied bots that but told Baldoni they were "doing something very specific in terms of what they do." My guess is they had actual fake accounts on reddit (shills, not bots) and some SEO tech to boost certain articles online (this is described in Jones' expert report). There are real time texts between Case and others, reacting during the crisis, sending things to Jed to be boosted and bragging he did a good job. There are texts talking about "we didn't write that article, but if they were talking about comments then maybe lol." That's Wayfarer/TAG people saying that, not Lively. I don't know if Lively will find enough evidence to prove what those things were and the scope of them. I hope so because I want to know more about how this stuff works.

There hasn’t been a specific example by Lively of an article containing falsehoods about her that was boosted, or even a example of such an article.

Why would you pay someone to spread stories, even if true, that make your employee look bad? What do you call that and why would you pay someone to help you do it?

She wasn’t their employee, and what you describe is not a “smear.”

DP. A claim for retaliation in this context can be about a former employee. This is why companies often have boiler plate language to provide about a former employee if contacted for a reference, for example. If an employee made a good faith complaint about working conditions while working for you, and then leaves, bad mouthing them to future employers could give rise to a retaliation claim.

So the question is not whether what Wayfarer did is a "smear" -- that's just the term used in the NYT article and has no legal relevance.

Rather, the question is whether (assuming for the moment that Lively's complaints during the production will be found to be protected activity) Wayfarer sought to retaliate against her for those complaints, by destroying her reputation, harming her career, or causing emotional pain and suffering.