+0.0
net board stance
what this means
57.85
-1.0% · close 2026-09-08
+2% / -4% / +3%
1m / 3m / 12m
-10%
vs SPY since 2023-03-03
60%
of 52w range · -13.7% off high
—
hit rate as primary
Where we stand — 0 live ideas
No active idea holds this ticker. Anything below is history.
Where the winds are blowing
NET BOARD STANCE, LAST 45 EPISODES —
rising = the besties are building this position, falling = abandoning it. Replayed from
score_events; an idea counts from birth until its window closes.
PRICE VS SPY OVER THE SAME WINDOW, % — did the
talk lead the tape or follow it?
Who's pushing which way
each voice's net push ON THIS TICKER — their most recent stance per idea × the idea's direction × strength, so supporting a bearish idea pushes down. Not conviction (that lives on the idea); this is direction of travel per person. what w= means
Track record on FOX
No closed window has used this ticker as its primary play, so there is no scored record here yet. Adjacent plays are listed but never scored.
| idea | call | play | verdict | R | α | closed |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 🏛️ Dominion's $1.6B defamation claim against Fox fails the actual-malice test | ▲ LONG | adjacent | MISS | -15.1% | -43.9 | 2024-03-03 |
The tape — what was actually said
every capture on any idea holding FOX, newest first · quotes verbatim, timestamps deep-link into the episode
Chamath
oppose ×3
▲ on
🏛️ Dominion's $1.6B defamation claim against Fox fails the actual-malice test
E125 · 2023-04-21
▶ 32:48
Fox, I think, has only 4 billion of cash, so they just spent 20 some odd percent of it paying this off. And if I were a shareholder, the question I would ask is did we actually make enough money to justify having to pay almost $800 million of our cash balance? The answer is probably no. And this is the first of a bunch of lawsuits that they have.
Sacks
reversal ×2
▲ on
🏛️ Dominion's $1.6B defamation claim against Fox fails the actual-malice test
E125 · 2023-04-21
▶ 29:32
So for this one network to get a fine of like 800 million, it's like pretty incredible. I mean, they should be handing out a lot more of these in my view, not just to Fox. But yeah, look, I would like to see, to that end, I would like to see the standard in New York Times versus Sullivan revised by the Supreme Court.
Sacks
support ×2
▲ on
🏛️ Dominion's $1.6B defamation claim against Fox fails the actual-malice test
E118 · 2023-03-03
▶ 1:17:13
But I don't think they're going to be because that's not the legal standard. I believe that if a television network knowingly spreads and endorses baseless accusations against somebody, which they know or should know is basically untrue, I think they should absolutely be liable for libel or defamation. But that is not what the law requires.