MrLoadin

So the point of the NYT running these articles all these years was to show that lack of government action allowed a corprate entity to run wild and help start a drug crisis in the US, and then generate ad revenue from the interest and readership such stories would bring all while doing a public good (exposing bad corp and pushing for legislation.)

With that and your sympathy in mind does the NYT plan on increasing detailed coverage on the effects of government overreaction to the opiate crisis? (both in increased federal and state spending and decrease in patient quality of life) I've only seen a couple small stories which weren't even found on the front page of the NYT website. That lack of coverage seems problematic to me, as media helped expose the causes and effects the opiate crisis, has praised the solutions to it, but hasn't really done a ton of coverage on the potential longterm effects of those solutions.

He is selling his opinion as scientific fact. Good on you for calling him out on it.

I don't think most people understand that is kinda what people like this do. He attempts to back up opinion and hypothesis with data and field work, but a lot of the conclusions being achieved are technically out of his wheelhouse. I'm sure he has a basic foundation in genetics and animal behavior that any anthropologist would, but not enough to fully understand there is a ton of data driven research which proves his stance is absolutely bizzare, especially on the topic of natural selection.

I wish more people would take a massive grain of salt when studying the opinions of academics like this. People who have a clear motivation to sell their opinion will most likely lower their bar for scientific "proof" before drawing conclusions. It sucks because all of the accolades and education make opinion seem like fact.

A libel or slander suit would likely result in faster action from elsewhere in HSUS, especially since they'll have heavy budget restrictions being a 501(c)3, thus accompishing your goal significantly faster due to the immediate rammifications it would have. I hope your legal team has pointed that out to you guys and that it was taken under consideration.

I feel like this is the type of business plan that a specific kind of lawyer and lawfirm would salivate over and allow to happen, simply because they know it will result in high billable hours or a longterm job for them.

I am rather surprised that you guys weren't at any point told by an attorney "Hey, this is pretty much covered under various forms of IP law. This is deemed illegal right now and we can technically get fined or have to pay damages because we have clearly stated our intent, and it will require us to win a court case or get a law changed to have that not be the case."

Also Facebook absolutely gets pressured by publishers to make specific changes. It's not just advertisers that make formal complaints to Facebook, mass-market publishing companies absolutely launch complaints that force internal changes or push design in a specific route.

Did you seek out the opinion of multiple varied lawfirms to confirm that whatever legal advice you guys have been given on this is accurate? I'm genuinely shocked this is a business plan that wasn't shut down at some point.

Since you have a background in therapy and social work, what is your opinion on the potential mental health negatives of your clients creating a paid parasocial relationship with a dating coach/therapist-ish person like yourself?

I feel this is quite a risk with what you are doing given how Discord and Twitch work as platforms.