I stopped watching Legal Eagle about a month ago for two reasons:
I watched him as a legal professional to get a better insight on what might come. It’s disappointing that he’s been continuously blindsighted by the events, no matter how crazy these events are. I don’t gain any insight on what will happen.
Recently, he had another lawyer do a piece where they mentioned Hillary Clinton’s email account, and since I usually trust this channel, I felt so gaslit I had to pause the video and search up what the scandal was. Lo and behold, it was an email server. Which means the only thing I fact-checked him on was wrong.
So I don’t gain anything by watching him, and I can’t trust exactly what he says. For a law channel, that’s enough for me to stop watching.
I’m glad to hear I’m not the only one who has had that experience with that specific channel.
I’ve been geeking out on IP law for a while now and I remember watching a LegalEagle video on how Disney might lose the rights to Spiderman or something like that.
And in that video, he confused/conflated the Copyright Act of 1976 with the Copyright Term Extension act which was passed in 1998. (He said that the 1976 one was the “life’s work” of Sonny Bono. The one that was the “life’s work” of Sonny was the 1998 act.) And I can’t say I’m that much of an expert on any branch of law, but I knew off the top of my head that that was wrong (and did a bunch of searching right after to make sure I wasn’t the one who was confused.)
So, yeah, it seems like the accuracy of the content on his channel is quite suspect.
You’re being unnecessarily pedantic about your second point. To most people an “email account” is going to mean an email address and mailbox, which is what she had, on her insecure personal email server.
What did he say about them? It sounds like he said account instead of server which sounds like a mistake someone may make. I understand the importance of rigor, but was there more? If not lie feels like a little much especially since you are asking here “why”.
From what I remember hearing people say he’s mostly alright, but occasionally gets things wrong or gives the wrong take when something is not in his field of specialization.
I think the Hasbro OGL scandal last year was one instance of him missing the point and not doing his research, for example.
Devon is fine. As someone who trends anarchist I personally find myself disagreeing at times. But not over his coverage. He covers the law which I often disagree with. But he covers the law pretty responsibly which I’m here for. Because it’s always good to have an understanding of things even if you disprove of them. Actually especially if you disprove of them you better be able to articulate why.
I stopped watching Legal Eagle about a month ago for two reasons:
I watched him as a legal professional to get a better insight on what might come. It’s disappointing that he’s been continuously blindsighted by the events, no matter how crazy these events are. I don’t gain any insight on what will happen.
Recently, he had another lawyer do a piece where they mentioned Hillary Clinton’s email account, and since I usually trust this channel, I felt so gaslit I had to pause the video and search up what the scandal was. Lo and behold, it was an email server. Which means the only thing I fact-checked him on was wrong.
So I don’t gain anything by watching him, and I can’t trust exactly what he says. For a law channel, that’s enough for me to stop watching.
I’m glad to hear I’m not the only one who has had that experience with that specific channel.
I’ve been geeking out on IP law for a while now and I remember watching a LegalEagle video on how Disney might lose the rights to Spiderman or something like that.
And in that video, he confused/conflated the Copyright Act of 1976 with the Copyright Term Extension act which was passed in 1998. (He said that the 1976 one was the “life’s work” of Sonny Bono. The one that was the “life’s work” of Sonny was the 1998 act.) And I can’t say I’m that much of an expert on any branch of law, but I knew off the top of my head that that was wrong (and did a bunch of searching right after to make sure I wasn’t the one who was confused.)
So, yeah, it seems like the accuracy of the content on his channel is quite suspect.
You’re being unnecessarily pedantic about your second point. To most people an “email account” is going to mean an email address and mailbox, which is what she had, on her insecure personal email server.
Reason 1: ??? Reason 2: A different person mixed up email account with email server
Damn, that’s unforgivable. What a fraud.
But…her emails.
But like, why lie?
What did he say about them? It sounds like he said account instead of server which sounds like a mistake someone may make. I understand the importance of rigor, but was there more? If not lie feels like a little much especially since you are asking here “why”.
Say it with me now:
Buttery males.
To be fair though, America is fucked .
From what I remember hearing people say he’s mostly alright, but occasionally gets things wrong or gives the wrong take when something is not in his field of specialization.
I think the Hasbro OGL scandal last year was one instance of him missing the point and not doing his research, for example.
Devon is fine. As someone who trends anarchist I personally find myself disagreeing at times. But not over his coverage. He covers the law which I often disagree with. But he covers the law pretty responsibly which I’m here for. Because it’s always good to have an understanding of things even if you disprove of them. Actually especially if you disprove of them you better be able to articulate why.
Check out the 5-4 podcast. They know what’s up.
I love that podcast. I just subscribed to them for their premium episodes and its so worth it.