from the bro,-fb-isn’t-prime-pee-video-territory dept
All hail Jason Fyk, one of the most aggrieved “failure to monetize piss videos” dudes ever. In fact, he might be the only person angered about his inability to turn pee into cash with third-party content featuring people urinating.
Anything that gives me a chance to embed this video (which also served as the ultimate piss take review of a Jet album by snarky music criticism overlords, Pitchfork) is welcomed, no matter how incremental the incident:
First, this is an ape, not a monkey. Second, while there’s definitely a market for videos of people urinating, it’s not on Facebook. It’s on any site that makes room for that particular kink, which means any porn site still in operation will host the content without complaint, even if it limits your monetization options.
Jason Fyk’s misplaced anger and long string of court losses stems from his unwillingness/inability to comprehend why any social media site might have a problem with this particular get [slightly] rich[er] scheme.
Fyk was already making plenty of money with his Facebook pages, if his own legal complaints are to be believed. Let’s check in with the author of this post, who has previously covered this extremely particular subject:
[T]hings were going good for Jason Fyk, at least as of a decade ago. He had 40 Facebook pages, 28 million “likes” and a potential audience of 260 million. Then it (allegedly)(partially) came crashing down. Fyk created a page Facebook didn’t like. Facebook took it down. That left Fyk with at least 39 other money-making pages but he still felt slighted to the extent he decided to start suing.
And sue he did! Of course, none of these lawsuits went anywhere. Not that Fyk hasn’t tried. He’s spent most of the last eight years hoping to smuggle a win out of federal court under the full-length dress of Lady Justice. Fyk lost and lost and lost and sued the government over Section 230 itself and lost and lost and lost.
Last year’s appellate Hail Mary from the would-be Pee King of Facebook was covered by Eric Goldman, who knows a thing or several about Section 230 and Section 230 lawsuits. Some Fyk fatigue was exhibited in Goldman’s December 2024 headline:
How Many Times Must the Courts Say “No” to This Guy?–Fyk v. Facebook
Goldman’s post suggested there might be a way to dissuade Fyk from increasing his losing streak:
Fyk argued that the law regarding anticompetitive animus had changed during his 6-year-long litigation quest, citing the Enigma v. Malwarebytes and Lemmon v. Snap decisions. However, the Ninth Circuit previously rejected the implications of Malwarebytes for Fyk’s case in its last ruling, and “Lemmon says nothing about whether Section 230(c)(1) shields social-media providers for content-moderation decisions made with anticompetitive animus.” Without any change in the relevant law, the court easily dismisses the case again. Remarkably, the court doesn’t impose any sanctions for what some courts might have felt was vexatious relitigation of resolved matters.
And that’s what Fyk does best: make arguments that make no sense, cite irrelevant court decisions, and generally waste everyone’s tax dollars and time. Here’s what the Ninth Circuit Appeals Court said to Fyk the last time around:
The remaining cases Fyk cites are unpublished, dissenting, out-of-circuit, or district-court opinions, which are not binding in this circuit and therefore do not constitute a change in the law.
Fyk is nothing if not persistent. Despite being rejected by the Supreme Court in the final year of what was supposed to be Trump’s only presidential term, Fyk decided his latest loss in the Ninth Circuit demanded another swing at Supreme Court certification.
And despite certain Supreme Court justices getting super-weird about content moderation since it’s preventing their buddies from going Nazi on main, Fyk return to the top court in the land ends like his last one: a single line under the heading “Certiorari Denied” in SCOTUS’s most recent order list release. Even justices sympathetic to bad people who want to be even worse online (so long as they hold certain “conservative views“) aren’t willing to die on Fyk’s piss-soaked hill, no matter how much urine of his own he sprays while wrongly correcting people about Section 230. His complaint is, once again, as dead as the banned account he’s been suing about for most of the last decade.
Filed Under: content moderation, frivolous lawsuit, jason fyk, lolsuit, section 230
Companies: facebook, meta, wtfnews
