maybe for defamation, I dunno what nullo had in mind but it could be a regular tort thing. I forget the exact timeline but depending on whether he suggested posting the emails/how other people got involved re implicating the site at his direction it could be direct injury from the stunt itself.
they cost time and money to resolve, and back then he was talking a lot about wanting to grow the site as a business so that's a loss as well (though tricky to quantify because direct stable monetisation hasn't been realised)
I don't recall either, but I know the whole twatter sperg out didn't really happen until after the article. That's why I really think he'd have the best case there because it would be hard for them to argue in court that they weren't seeking that kind of response because they wouldn't have made the false claim that they'd independently verified the information otherwise. To me, it's basically like this.
- Can you prove that USA Today knowingly spread false allegations?
Yes, they claimed to have independently verified the information, which means they either didn't actually know and lied about not actually knowing, or they did actually attempt verification, found that it was a false claim, and still reported it as factual. Pretty much anything in between meets the criteria for being gross negligence.
- Can you prove that Null/Kiwi farms suffered damages?
Yes, Null had to pay out of pocket for DDoS mitigation, which is damage that can be quantified directly in addition to the loss of time and additional stress (emotional damages).
- Can you prove that USA Today knew that they'd cause damages to Null/Kiwifarms?
Yes. Point one establishes intent or gross negligence.
For Byuu, it seems like you'd have a hard time arguing point 3, because he could easily just argue "well, I just wanted to disappear off the internet and didn't know that all of this would happen."
