This is disappointing on so many levels =/
this post was submitted on 01 Apr 2025
29 points (100.0% liked)
PC Gamer
72 readers
170 users here now
RSS News community on Lemmy for PC Gamer
If you dislike RSS Bot communities please block this one and don't complain.
PC Gamer is the global authority on PC games. We've been covering PC gaming for more than 20 years, and continue that legacy today with worldwide print editions and around-the-clock news, features, esports coverage, hardware testing, and game reviews on pcgamer.com, as well as the annual PC Gaming Show at E3.
founded 6 days ago
MODERATORS
I don't really like Jobst, but this seems like a large amount of money for such a small content creator. On the other hand, he should have stuck to the facts. Fine calling out the cheating, but implying the man basically extorted someone and this being the direct cause of the suicide is going way too far. Jobst had no proof and based this claim on nothing, so the ruling seems fair.
surely how popular someone is has no bearing on how much money they can get from a defamation lawsuit? The deciding factor should be how much harm they've been caused.
I don't know, there is something to be said for scaling with regards to income. We've seen plenty of examples where rich folk can get away with anything because they can just pay up and poor folk have their lives destroyed for small mistakes. In some situations it is taken into consideration.
However I do agree the actual damages should be covered. But you can't tell me Mitchell actually had hundreds of thousands of dollars in actual damage, that's some BS.
yeah but that should only appy to the perpetrator, not the victim
if you do apply it to the victim it should be the other way round, if they're poor they should get more money, not less
i don't see in what universe it would make sense to give the victim of defamation less money because they're not popular