thinkcomp

This is about more than just click fraud. False claims of user growth have propelled Facebook's stock upward. That's securities fraud.

I go into more detail in the report I wrote in January, which also points out that the perfectly constant DAU/MAU relationship Facebook reports cannot possibly be true as growth continues to slow/reverse. See https://www.plainsite.org/realitycheck/facebook.html.

I'm the author (Aaron Greenspan). Funnily enough, Joseph Perla used to be my roommate in Palo Alto. But I had nothing to do with him writing that piece, and I think he later ended up working for Facebook. So maybe his convictions weren't quite so strong.

Ask how Facebook actually measures its fake accounts. See https://www.plainsite.org/realitycheck/facebook.html.

Correct. One example of literally thousands: https://reportcheatingonline.com/aaron-jacob-greenspan-owns-...

"Protected" by Cloudflare against "attack."

See also https://www.plainsite.org/dockets/3a4l9qm45/superior-court-o....

See also https://splinternews.com/at-home-with-a-revenge-porn-mogul-1....

See also https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/feb/10/web-giant-clou....

See also, for the next likely criminal investigation:

http://www.plainsite.org/realitycheck/facebook.html

Tesla, Inc. v. Tripp Nevada District Court, Case No. 3:18-cv-00296-LRH-CBC

https://www.plainsite.org/dockets/3br5tkwuj/nevada-district-...

Court docket here: https://www.plainsite.org/dockets/38v97us7k/california-centr...

For the record, I warned Mark on April 7, 2005 and August 21, 2005 about the very problems we are having now: exposing friend data linked to given user IDs (Cambridge Analytica), inevitable FTC Section 5 liability, and the effect of spam on the network (fake accounts).

Mark's response: not worth arguing about.

http://www.thinkpress.com/authoritas/timeline.pdf

Mark Zuckerberg : Facebook :: Elizabeth Holmes : Theranos

Holmes's biggest mistake was making hardware, so the fraud was more obvious. Until the media actually digs deep into the fake/fraudulent account problem on Facebook, the stock will continue to go up.

She is also a quack, and hardly one of the "leading autism experts" in the United States.

http://sethmnookin.com/2011/04/20/researcher-who-does-not-me...

http://americanloons.blogspot.com/2016/10/1730-martha-herber...

Agreed. He also thinks electromagnetic waves cause autism (and he's not an MD).

http://www.autismone.org/content/martin-l-pall-ba-phd-autism...

I find the economic analysis here extremely compelling, but it's worth noting that at least one of the Hussman funds has had pretty awful returns historically:

https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/HSGFX?p=HSGFX

What I take away from this is that understanding macroeconomic trends is different than being a successful investor.

Mark has lied consistently, and in public, since at least 2005. My first post on Hacker News was a warning. It's a shame no one listened.

https://www.quora.com/How-did-Zuckerberg-code-Facebook-so-fa...

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/open-to-attack-and-conn...

Having read through the latest filings, it looks like the District Court judge is pretty upset with Facebook and its tactics, and was willing to give no leeway to their request to stay the case as a result. He wanted a trial, and soon.

One of the tactics that they used was going over his head to the Ninth Circuit to request a stay at the district level (https://www.plainsite.org/dockets/download.html?id=253527059...), which the Ninth Circuit then granted (https://www.plainsite.org/dockets/download.html?id=253580963...). So then the district court judge had to effectively grant the stay anyhow, which he had just denied:

"ORDER. In light of the circuit court's order, all remaining pre-trial and trial dates are vacated. Signed by Judge James Donato on 5/29/2018. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (jdlc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/29/2018)"

This is what having infinite cash buys you in the American legal system.

Here's the docket:

https://www.plainsite.org/dockets/2mwpixhn9/california-north...

Perhaps this is related to why the company is being sued over its tax evasion strategies.

https://www.plainsite.org/dockets/304jmbv5l/california-north...

It's never too late to quit Facebook as a user, as a contractor, or an employee.

Better yet, become a whistleblower and leak to the press.

Hakan Yalincak called posing as a lawyer to get his case information removed from PlainSite. Here it is:

https://www.plainsite.org/tags/yalincak-crime-family/

Civil Docket: https://www.plainsite.org/dockets/3a2ojfzjx/georgia-northern...

Criminal Docket: https://www.plainsite.org/dockets/3a2ok04e4/georgia-northern...

I graduated high school in 2001. Mark graduated high school in 2002.

I'm just going to keep posting this.

I told Mark about this exact problem in 2005.

https://twitter.com/AaronGreenspan/status/975957889767505920

And I warned him about FTC liability if he ignored it.

https://twitter.com/AaronGreenspan/status/976331044084264960

After that, we stopped talking.

Mark has known about this issue since I fought with him over it in 2005.

https://twitter.com/AaronGreenspan/status/975957889767505920

https://twitter.com/AaronGreenspan/status/976331044084264960

As I have said time and again, Mark is not trustworthy and never has been.

We no longer have access to RECAP data due to FLP's actions. Neither do other public access sites. One just sold itself. Another is about to shut down.

The model is RECAP before Free Law Project took over. It was backed by Princeton (which didn't spend much), had far fewer expenses (certainly no one got paid $90K a year; it was a grad student project), and moved forward code-wise via the coding challenge my foundation sponsored which cost one-fifth as much. See https://free.law/2013/04/02/two-recap-grants-awarded-in-memo....

The problem here is that RECAP may need money, but it is not being transparent about how it gets its money and is misleading users as a result.

Mike has made deliberate choices about how he runs FLP. I run Think Computer Foundation and PlainSite, which does the same thing as CourtListener. PlainSite is financially self-sustaining. CourtListener is not. There are alternatives to FLP's new "model."

See "District Court Opinions that Remain Hidden Despite a Longstanding Congressional Mandate of Transparency – The Result of Judicial Autonomy and Systemic Indifference" by Peter Martin at Cornell. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3034399

This is true, but on the other hand, anyone who has ever been involved in litigation knows that it takes about one day to exceed 150 pages ($15) worth of documents in legal research.

It would be nice if the world were so simple.

I run PlainSite, which indexes about 10 million dockets and is mentioned in the OP's post. I have experience in this field.

PACER is of value not only to litigants, but also to journalists, academics, employers, and average citizens who are interested in any given topic, individual or company.

Litigants who need PACER access but can't afford it are almost never given free access. When you file on CM/ECF, the e-filing side of PACER, you are given one free bite at the apple for documents in your own case. Legal research involving other cases is not free. Second attempts to view documents in your own case are not free. In forma pauperis status does not make your access free. PACER waivers are not granted to anyone but select academics, and then, rarely.

Many opinions are not properly tagged as opinions since it is each individual judge's responsibility to handle the tagging. PACER charges for them anyway, even though they are supposed to be free. This applies to tens or hundreds of thousands of documents on the system. See https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3034399 and https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3026779.

It is rayiner's opinion that it's not unreasonable for the government to charge an access fee per page for PACER, but it is the law (the E-Government Act of 2002) that doing so is inappropriate and illegal. Recently, the authors of that Act, Darrell Issa and Joe Lieberman, filed an amicus brief explaining their position on that matter yet again in the ongoing litigation. See https://www.plainsite.org/dockets/download.html?id=246610557....

The marginal cost to the government of filing a new suit is substantial; hence the filing fee. The marginal cost of providing one more PDF to the public is zero. That's an important difference.

Docket: https://www.plainsite.org/dockets/36kxb8b9n/new-york-eastern...