this post was submitted on 02 Feb 2026
197 points (96.7% liked)

Not The Onion

20048 readers
997 users here now

Welcome

We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!

The Rules

Posts must be:

  1. Links to news stories from...
  2. ...credible sources, with...
  3. ...their original headlines, that...
  4. ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”

Please also avoid duplicates.

Comments and post content must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.

And that’s basically it!

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

A man who worked an AI watchdog reveals how OpenAI representatives suddenly showed up at his door step, demanding documents.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] M0oP0o@mander.xyz 11 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Ah yes the old using legal processes to quash critics. Nothing to see here, just standard legal practice.

[–] scarabic@lemmy.world 2 points 18 hours ago (2 children)

If you can argue that the action was baseless harassment, then do so. Frivolous lawsuits have their own penalties. But you can’t argue with the subpoena process on its face.

[–] MangoCats@feddit.it 1 points 11 hours ago

Subpoena + publicity = uninsurable. And when you work for a low-profit endeavor, your "damages" are limited to the money you might have made were you insurable, at least that's how the courts measure it and the lawyers decide to take the case or not. OpenAI would probably gladly lose a case and pay whatever income The Midas Project lost as a result of OpenAI's actions - profit isn't the point of The Midas Project, reporting what is happening in the industry is, and that mission has been effectively thwarted with the uninsurable status.

[–] M0oP0o@mander.xyz 1 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

Odd, I just kinda did do that. The process here is very clearly being used to try put a cooling effect on criticism, and the anti-SLAP rules only work if someone can afford to pay for litigation (another example of a flawed system).

[–] scarabic@lemmy.world -1 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

You didn’t argue it at all, you just asserted it, and now you’re just asserting the motivation.

[–] M0oP0o@mander.xyz -1 points 10 hours ago

Yes, and to expand on my argument may I point out my functioning eyes.