That's an interesting perspective, that now has me thinking, Lol.

My issue is mostly that it's a bit of a low quality thread, not only damaging to our credibility as a website but also feeling like it's an attack towards the judge, I don't want to help spread this conspiracy theory that she's biased and cause others to attack her, if this wasn't about an individual but something else (like flat earth) then I might let people get their ribbing in first, Lmao, but I would still lock it later because I'd rather just stamp the conspiracy theories out.

It's mostly that it's a person here that I am so reactive, even though nobody here may do it, I imagine a lurker seeing this thread (some console warrior) and then spreading it on Twitter, then another dude spreads it, and another, then then we have a bunch of angry console warriors attacking the judge on Twitter over some stupid conspiracy theory but if I'm being honest, they're doing that already, so I guess the argument is do we leave conspiracy theory threads up.

Maybe I'll change the title while we have this conversation, Lol.

Bold - No? Not usually, Lol. We don't tend to allow conspiracy theory threads, we don't tend to help promote conspiracy theories, in addition, if someone were to make a conspiracy theory thread to that degree (I.E. Flat Earth) they would be brutally mocked by certain users and that will cause a whole other host of problems (flaming, trolling, etc.) which if I'm being honest? Personally? I wouldn't really want to moderate good users calling out utterly stupid conspiracy theories even if they do it in a not so mild mannered way.

You're twisting my words as well, is it a fact that her son works for Microsoft? Yes? I never disputed that. Is it a conspiracy theory that she will be biased towards Microsoft because of that? Yes. Lol. It's based on absolutely nothing substantial. It's not a scandal. It's not frightening. If you read my post you would see that she said from the very start of the trial that her son works for Microsoft. You would see that the FTC themselves agreed it wasn't an issue.

Because it is not an issue, she is not bias. People far smarter than all of us have agreed it wasn't an issue. If the FTC thought she had a potential for bias, they would call for a different judge. You can just as easily say she's bias towards FTC because she is also a Biden appointed person just as Lina Khan (the head of FTC is) but that would be a stupid thing to say as well.

OTOH. This thread has a very strong chance of turning into a thread where the vast majority are mocking the OP for saying something silly, which then becomes problems of the opposite variety, or it can turn into a thread where people actually believe it's an issue and help spread silly attacks about the judges credibility.

Yes, incredible. Incredible stupid, that is.

Common sense is refered to, but no common sense is being applied. This reasoning is framed as if Microsoft wasn't one of the most profitable companies on this planet, as if the child in question would be in any danger of losing their job if the A-B deal didn't go through. The judge in question would put herself on the line for a reason that is absolutely inconsequential for her son. As if.

This watchdog group is likely admiring Michael Pachter and trying to emulate him.

First of all, thanks for engaging. 

I think "flat earth" vs "judge's son works for X company" are a bit different, legal proceedings and court dealings are uncharted territory for most, including me. I certainly have said things months ago about the case that I would cringe hard reading them now. So while "judge's son works for x" makes for a flashy headlines that didn't fool me, I can see why others might fall for it, it's just not public knowledge.

Keeping the door open for discussions can be educational, I have already learned a new thing reading other posts on here, make of what you will.

Now this is some premium level reaching. Though not too surprising seeing threads like this pop up after how badly the ftc performed.

There are procedures for disclosing of potential conflicts of interest on behalf of a judge. Were they followed here?

Idk what they were but I do know the FTC/Microsoft had opportunity to object to the judge chosen for the case, they both agreed to her and Judge Corley informed both parties right at the start that she has a son who works at Microsoft, the FTC didn't care and the only reason this watchdog knows about it is because she was honest (before the trial even started) about it.

Maybe watchdogs should be more concerned about the FTC very weak case overall and lack of evidence to show the harm it will have on consumers. Even then, the judge may side with the FTC, which would be further proof how dumb of a take this is. Unfortunately, if the FTC loses, we will see this "issue" and people will run with it instead of why it really happened and the content of the court case.

Granted lobbying is an issue when it comes to US businesses, this is a big reach. Unless like someone said above.. there is proof of conflict of interest. This isn't worth bothering talking about.

Considering the judge that was supposed to be in the Desantis/Disney case was basically forced to recuse himself because a relative owned Disney stock, I can see the reason for this judge to recuse themself as well. I don't personally think the judge is going to come to a decision because their son works at Microsoft, so i don't care either way.