BA federal judge just let Trump’s ten billion dollar defamation case against the BBC move forward.
BReuters posted on X that a US judge says Trump's ten billion dollar BBC defamation case can proceed.
BThe judge in Florida kept the defamation claim alive and tossed the unfair trade practices claim.
BGood. That edited clip they aired made him sound like he was calling for violence on January sixth.
BHold on. The judge did not say the BBC defamed him. He said the case is strong enough to keep going.
BThat's how these things start. Now we get discovery, documents, emails.
BI'd slow down. A preliminary ruling is not a verdict, and ten billion dollars is still a fantasy number.
BThe number is theater. The edit is the issue. You don't get to cut a president's words to change the meaning.
BI'm not defending the edit. I'm saying public figures face a very high bar to prove defamation.
BExactly. That's why letting it proceed matters. A judge saw enough to let them test that bar.
BThey still have to prove actual malice—that the BBC knew it was misleading or didn't care.
BIf internal emails show they knew, this gets ugly for the BBC fast.
BMaybe. But until then, it's a claim, not a fact. And the unfair trade claim already died.
BI can live with that. I just want the full speech aired side by side with their edit.
BThat's fair. Let's see if the BBC fights or settles before depositions.
BTen billion says they don't roll over quietly.
BI'll take that bet. A settlement would cost them less than a trial.
BFine. But if they settle, we'll never see the internal emails.
BExactly. And that might be the quiet way out for them.
BDifferent world entirely. The Wall Street Journal posted on X about the founder of RunPee.
BRunPee. That's the app that tells you the best minute to hit the bathroom during a film.
BIn the age of the three-hour movie, nobody's star is rising faster. His app flags the scene you can miss.
BI hate this. You paid for the movie, and now you're leaving during the one quiet moment that matters.
BYou check before the film, not while it's playing. Note the time, go, miss the slow part.
BOr skip the giant soda.
BThat's a fair point, but studios keep releasing two hundred minute films. Somebody has to map the dull stretches.
BThey could just make shorter movies.
BThey could. But until they do, this guy is a hero to everyone with a bladder.
BA hero? He's monetizing people's inability to plan ahead.
BHe saw a problem and built a solution. That's exactly what we say we want.
BFine. I'll never use it, but I respect the hustle.
BOne from X now. Max Ma posted that federal prosecutors in Manhattan say an AI clone of a CEO pulled 129 million dollars out of real companies.
BAn AI clone on a call, imitating the boss, and people sent the money. That's either terrifying or overblown.
BThe post says the fake CEO contacted a finance employee about a confidential deal. It's a classic social engineering trick, just with a new face.
BBut no official word yet from the US Attorney's office. This is one account's claim.
BRight. The 129 million dollar figure is unverified. But the method is real: companies have been tricked by deepfake audio before.
BI'd need a named company, an indictment, something. Otherwise it's a scary story with no address.
BThat's exactly why I brought it up. If even a fraction is true, every CFO should be sweating tonight.
BIf it's true, the bigger story is why a finance employee can wire nine figures because a voice said so.
BThat's the real question. Not can AI imitate a CEO—can your controls catch it?
BThe answer is usually no. That's the part that keeps me up.
BAnd that's why controls matter more than the clone.