Hacker News Reader

Comment by ok_dad | Hacker News Reader

Seems like a Streisand effect case to me, but I'm not Maury Blackman so I can't say whether or not his arrest for domestic violence in Mission Bay in 2021 will be more well-known now that he's bullying and suing a reporter about it and trying to make it disappear. I can't believe that he might be successful, too, the USA is at some sort of crossroads where if we're not careful the most important freedoms that we have, those we can use to fight un-democratic trash, will vanish.

View on HN

>Seems like a Streisand effect case to me

He already lost his job, news is out there, so at some point I wonder if the effect doesn't matter anymore.

I gotta think it doesn't really matter if more distant randos (you, me) know.

Hmmm ... at some point, maybe one of those random people are in a position to hire him and now they know.

Good chance if it is for an executive job they do a quick googling anyway.

Some of these background check companies (probably run by people with HN accounts) do protcoscope-level checks.

They find social media posts, videos, photos, discussion comments, etc.

With deepfakes, this is gonna get much worse.

Just today, I was checking on a signup request for our app, and came across a video of the person that I think was a hit piece; maybe a deepfake.

I still approved them, but the posting was clearly designed to cause them harm. I have no idea whether or not it did.

> I was checking on a signup request for our app, and came across a video of the person

You're checking on everyone who signs up for an app?

To an extent. Most times, it isn’t necessary to look them up. In this case, the person used a full email box, and I wanted to see if I could get them word about it. Our app is about helping folks, suffering challenges. If they are legit, then we could probably be a big help.

We Serve a small, specific demographic, and privacy is pretty important. I’d much rather not do that kind of thing. I just want to avoid admitting obvious bad actors.

We get a lot of scammers that try to sign up. We have probably let in a ringer or two, but they won’t find the app especially fruitful. It’s pretty locked-down. Facebook would be a much better hunting ground.

Also, said demographic is exactly the type that might get hit pieces posted, so it is actually an argument in favor of them being the “real deal.”

He was suing to remove the report from google results so FUTURE employers do not find it. so yes, the effect mattered to him. now even if he wins that case there will be dozens others that have reported this and will be impossible to remove them all.

Definitely, but in this case, it may be a Streisand Effect with a $25 million payout attached.

it is unclear to me whether US law and precedent has the idea of "half-truths" being defamatory. In this case, I'd imagine that would apply if it can be applied; the plaintiff was technically arrested, but legally the arrest itself was expunged. So telling people he was arrested is a truth that definitely isn't telling the whole truth.

The US has truth has absolute bar to defamation. He really did get arrested the police report says what it was reported to have in it.

A judge had said that it's as if the arrest had not occurred and ordered the record sealed. Without reporting the whole story, they're certainly not telling the "truth."

I doubt the journalist actually has 25 million to pay, even if the CEO wins the lawsuit.

In this case, the effect would not be to merely bring the arrest to light. Anyone who comes across the arrest now, is likely to come across the whole story, which is that it has been expunged and he was not guilty.

The whole story is also what the report says, which was that his partner was bloodied and cut and only recanted her story after he was being arrested, which is common in domestic abuse cases. His arrest was sealed after the charges were dropped, but he wasn't found "not guilty" or "guilty" in this case.

Also, the "effect" could be to ruin an independent reporter, not just hide or explain the arrest.

I see, so the justice system we’ve all agreed as a society to defer to, including the detectives that worked this case, don’t have the right answer but Internet Guy with 0 first hand knowledge does.

What kind of a comment or question is that? Do you have a point? I'm arguing this dude shouldn't be suing a reporter for reporting facts, you are willfully ignoring the fact that wealthy CEO-types often use money and high-powered lawyers to hide their misdeeds, who knows if this was the case here, and I am not saying it was, but how is this defamation? The guy was arrested for domestic violence, the statement by the officer states the woman was injured, what am I doing wrong here by repeating these same facts I just read in an article? Your comment is useless as-is, it's just appeal to authority.

I thought my point was obvious — you’re declaring someone guilty of a crime when you have no knowledge of the case or more generally have no idea what you’re talking about.

No I’m saying transparency is more important than some asshole who is suing a guy trying to bully him into removing information. This dude got arrested, whether he’s deemed guilty or not doesn’t matter to me, I think it’s more important to have transparency as a society. I don’t give a shit about this guy’s innocence or guilt.

Obviously you're being sarcastic, but this is pretty much how things function in 2025.

Faith in the justice system is almost zero, and widespread skepticism of mass media means that “Internet Guy online with 0 firsthand knowledge” is often viewed as just as credible as major news outlets.

I don't have an answer, but it is a sad state of affairs that people aren't incorrect to embrace.

> the justice system we’ve all agreed as a society to defer to

I don’t remember that anyone has asked me. I know this is an often cited justification for laws but it is kinda suspect and not well tought through.

> the detectives that worked this case

I would trully love to read their opinion / notes on the case.

Do you not see the problem? Despite a judge discharging him without conviction, you feel as though you have the full story and he's absolutely guilty and irredeemable. You leave no room in your analysis for information the judge may have had which you do not.

No, I don’t see the problem, judges get bought all the time. Appealing to the judges decision is one of the strongest appeals to authority. I’d prefer his arrest record was public, with the case laid out, and if he was innocent and was arrested without cause then everyone could see that.

> expunged and he was not guilty

Sealed, for undisclosed reasons, with no determination as to his guilt or lack thereof.

innocent people often ask to have the results sealed.

He wasn't tried, so there are no results.

Streisand effect is for when someone is trying to intentionally hide something from the public eye. Here the case is already in the public eye and they are suing for damages. It seems less about hiding it anymore and more about seeking damages for what’s already been shared in the public.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com