Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt

from the anonymous-cowards-are-funny dept

Sun, Mar 4th 2012 12:00pm — Mike Masnick

Coming in first by a wide, wide margin (which has been the pattern the last few weeks) is Chosen Reject, on our story about how innovation provides a better solution to piracy than regulation. One of the first comments made a snide comment about how the same thing could be said for murder. CR responded with a really insightful rant, and the community agreed, voting for it a tremendous number of times.

I'll leave aside your asinine analogy as others have already pointed that out and just say that you forgot the other part concerning innovating. So let's run with your analogy: Who cares if murder is wrong if stopping it is impossible and innovating provides better solutions?

For example, what if, rather than just increasing penalties for murder and hiring more law enforcers, we hired more counselors and arbitrators to provide counseling and arbitration free of charge to angry people. Let's say we try this and find that it reduces the murder rate more than increasing penalties and detectives does. Would you still say stand up on your soapbox and shout that penalties need to be stiffer and more detectives need to be hired?

What if having job location services, education opportunities, and access to medical and mental health care were to reduce violent crime (including murders) more than banning guns would? Would you still petition for stricter gun control laws?

This can be applied anywhere. What if lowering the tax rate and simplifying the tax code were to reduce tax fraud and raise revenues? Would you be asking for more IRS workers to conduct more tax audits? What if building sidewalks overpasses or underground streets in school zones reduced car accidents? Would you still be advocating 15mph speed zones? What if legalizing drugs and providing addiction recovery help and other self help systems for drug addicts reduced the amount of drug users and/or drug related crime? Would you still be crying for longer jail terms?

What if Hollywood provided a service that was better than the Pirate Bay and that reduced infringement and brought in revenue? Would you still be asking for increased fines for infringement? Oh wait, you are. Never mind, I guess you don't care about results, you only care about what you think is "right".

Coming in second was a handy tip from an Anonymous user responding to the fact that we only discovered accidentally the fact that an important Techdirt link was taken out of the Google via a bogus DMCA notice. It turns out that there is a way to get alerted to such notices, but you have to be proactive in setting it up. So, for anyone who runs a website, you might want to think about doing this too:

Add your site to Google Webmaster Tools and go to "All Messages" on the left and you can see Google's DMCA notices as they come in (not sure about the historical ones). You should also go to "Preferences" and have them forward notices to an email account so you don't have to log into Webmaster Tools all the time to see them. IIRC they added this ability last year but not too many people know about it.

We've now done this, so hopefully won't be taken by surprise on any new bogus DMCA takedowns being sent to Google.

For editor's choice, we'll kick off with this nice long comment from DannyB, that I'd summarize as what life would be like if your municipal water supplier acted like AT&T:

I have an interesting situation. My water utility sells me metered water for washing dishes, watering the lawn, showering, and other limited purposes.

The utility offers a Tasting plan for an additional monthly charge. Under this plan, I am allowed to use the water also for cooking and drinking. (Even though my water use is metered, and each gallon of water for cooking and drinking is delivered by the same pipes!)

Dear customer: our records indicate that you have been using water for cooking and/or drinking. Please upgrade your water rate plan to our convenient Tasting plan that allows for this usage. If you continue to use water for cooking and drinking, you will be signed up for the Tasting plan automatically.

I think the Tasting plan is just a fee that they made up. It isn't a service they provide. They just want more money from me. I've got a workaround of using a container to obtain water from another room for the purposes of cooking and drinking.

Some people shout: Theft of service! But what service? They're already delivering water to me, and metering it, and I'm paying for it, and its delivered by the same pipes!

Some people shout: but you signed an agreement and using the water for cooking and drinking is a breach of that agreement!

Ask a lawyer about the term "unconscionable contract".

Nobody in their right mind would agree to this if they had any actual choice in the matter. Just because they have the power and can force you into paying this ridiculous fee or doing without doesn't make it right.

I say that this Tasting "service" is no service at all, it's just a fee for delivering nothing at all extra to me. It's a case of the utility wanting something for nothing. Yet people seem to think it is somehow wrong to use the water I'm paying for for drinking or cooking unless I sign up for the more expensive Tasting plan.

In order to add legitimacy to their Tasting plan, the water company says that the Tasting plan is actually delivering something: it includes an additional 2 Gigabytes of water per month, giving you 4 total Gigabytes of water.

But what if I only need 2 Gigabytes of water and therefore my existing monthly 2 Gigabyte plan is plenty? The water company already charges $10 per extra Gigabyte of water I use over the limit. So if I used excess water, it's not like they wouldn't get paid.

Furthermore, once I sign up for the Tasting plan, they don't make any distinction between water used for drinking/cooking and water used for other purposes. I could use 3/4 of it for tasting, and 1/4 for bathing/dishwashing. Or any other split. Or all of it purely for tasting. So then if I paid for Tasting and used only 2 Gigabytes of water, which I already had paid for, then why did I need the Tasting plan?

I seem to be very confused about stealing water for tasting. Someone please set me straight.

Next up, we have Robert Doyle's interesting response to the "We, Web Kids" manifesto:

When did we stop building foundations for our children and instead start building ceilings?

The next generation needs to determine how high their own sky is, and if it surpasses ours, all the better.

Good stuff... but way too serious. Let's check out the winners for funniest. Leading the way, we have an Anonymous Coward responding to the stupid (and insulting) argument of "I can't take your Mom's car for a ride without her permission, can I?" to which AC responded quickly:

You can totally make a copy of my mom's car and take that for a ride. If you really wanted, you could make a copy of my mom and take her for a ride too.

Coming in second... was actually a comment on last week's "funniest/most insightful" where another Anonymous Coward went for an over the top rendition of a comment from a critic that we talked about last week:

ONCE AGAIN, THE GREAT MIKE SATAN PROVES HIS INTELLECTUAL TECHDIRT BY FLAUNTING THE TAINT OF THE GREAT HITLER PIRACY

You should be CAREFUL Mike HUSSEIN Masnick because I'M a BIGWIG at several MAJOR SILICON VALLEY INVESTMENT FIRMS. Me and the BOYS down at the SILICON VALLEY YACHTING CLUB were just TALKING about IMPORTANT issues such as OPINION BLOGS DEVOTED TO TECHNOLOGY.

And as I was SIPPING my CAVIAR from my GOLD-PLATED WINEGLASS, curly mustache and large jet-black top-hat punctuating the MONOCLE that I wear at my LEFT-EYE. I happened to CASUALLY MENTION HOW THEY SHOULD AVOID A RAPSCALLION SUCH AS YOURSELF and not SHOWER you with GOLDS AND RICHES that our kind is constantly donating to troubled technology blogs. I believe it went something like this:

"Why kind sir, I have the most stunning news story from this blogatory site known as the technology filth"

"You are in ill-faith kind sir! the blogatation site known as techdirt is a folly run by an absolute FLIBBERTIGIBBET known as Michael Hussein Masnick. Here is a SAMPLE of his site that I have had HAND-WRITTEN by my team of internet-scouring monks which I use in place of an ELECTRONIC DEVICE. As you can SEE, there are many ANONYMOUS PEOPLE who criticize him primarily with swear words. Clearly not the behavior of a well-groomed community of an internet establishment"

AND NOW YOUR DAINTY NAME IS TAINTED ALL THROUGHOUT THE TECH-WORLD. YOU HAVE BEEN UNDONE MIKE MASNICK. YOU WILL NEVER BE SHOWERED WITH CHECKS AFTER THE HEARTY LAUGH ME AND MY KIND HAD AT YOUR EXPENSE.

That one made my day.

On to editor's choice. First up, we've got an Anonymous Coward, responding to that bogus DMCA takedown against us, discussing how it would be possible for us to calculate "damages" from the takedown, and deciding that we should use a form of RIAA/MPAA math:

Easy. Ask Google how many times people searched for SOPA, then assume one in ten of those would've donated at least $5. This will range in the millions of dollars. That's how it works, right?

And, finally, we have another Anonymous Coward responding to the story of Rumblefish claiming copyright on birds singing. This AC went for the layup:

No wonder the birds are angry.

That explains so much... including Rovio's stance on piracy. Anyway, just as I was finishing this up, I realized that all four of the "funny" comments came from Anonymous Cowards. Perhaps allowing anonymous comments isn't such a bad idea, huh?

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

61 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 4 Mar 2012 @ 12:42pm

Filthy Technology
Now I wonder how many people ended up finding techdirt when they were searching for robot porn. Besides me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 4 Mar 2012 @ 1:02pm
  
  Re: Filthy Technology
  I never thought I'd say this, but I'm sure they'd have found Topless Robot first. A majorly entertaining site filled with geek related news and drunken shenanigans. Hint for the uninitiated, DO NOT ever say a negative word about Tron. You may bring down the wrath of the Drunken Bricken. Also, any positive Tron related news, you'd do well to wear a raincoat... that's all I'm gonna say.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Lawrence D'Oliveiro, 4 Mar 2012 @ 2:38pm
    
    Re:Filthy Technology
    As somebody from The Tron, I would say yes, don�t diss the Pocket Metropolis!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Lauriel (profile), 4 Mar 2012 @ 9:53pm
    
    Re: Re: Filthy Technology
    Actually it leads to 'regretful morning's' site, with a link to '20 Bizarre examples of robot porn'.
    
    Having never known (nor thought of) robot porn, I had to Google it. Plus the thought of the new privacy thingy keeping that in the search history amused me. :)
    
    btw: Link NSFW, but the second picture is hysterical.
    
    http://www.google.com.au/search?source=ig&hl=en&rlz=1G1GGLQ_ENAU326&q=rob ot+porn&oq=robot+porn&aq=f&aqi=g10&aql=&gs_sm=3&gs_upl=443l3331l0l3941l9l8l0 l0l0l0l904l1654l2.1.2.6-1l6l0
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 5 Mar 2012 @ 3:23am
  
  Re: Filthy Technology
  *Raises hand*
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Mar 2012 @ 1:44pm

'all four of the "funny" comments came from Anonymous Cowards'

so how will you get on when they introduce the law that no one must be anonymous? will it mean that you will have to chose comments 5-8 instead?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 4 Mar 2012 @ 8:16pm
  
  Re:
  I will shit down that laws throat.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Mar 2012 @ 2:05pm

I SEE THAT NOTHING HAS CHANGED.

YET EVERYTHING HAS CHANGED.

THE LAST little known thing WE ALL KNOW means that SOMETHING has CHANGED.

This CHANGE isn't known but something IS and YOU MUST DECIPHER.

I don't really when you mean in time but sunlight. Alot. It's time for slow. Contradictory lessons in universe. Split. Collide.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Torg (profile), 4 Mar 2012 @ 2:20pm
  
  Re:
  This is a tech/copyright site. Take your quantum physics someplace else.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 4 Mar 2012 @ 3:21pm
    
    Re: Re:
    14th! Collision. World split. ...Trolling.
    
    ...Okay, I'll stop now.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - VMax, 4 Mar 2012 @ 4:16pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Woah, quantum trolling! It only exists if you're looking at it.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 4 Mar 2012 @ 8:17pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Then isn't all trolling quantum trolling?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Torg (profile), 4 Mar 2012 @ 8:31pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Sure, if you want to look at it that way.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 4 Mar 2012 @ 8:42pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        The quantum troll.
        
        He can either read an argument with facts or provide one without facts. He can never provide an argument with facts. He must provide the argument first and see if it sticks with others after.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Watchit (profile), 4 Mar 2012 @ 10:10pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Quantum Troll physics continued...
        
        Now say we take an AC and stick him in a box where he then writes a comment. Without opening the box we can neither tell if he has trolled or given a straightforward intelligent remark. Therefore we can assume that the AC is both a Troll and a rational human being at the same time!
        
        Erwin Schr�dinger would later use this same thought experiment to describe the Copenhagen interpretation paradox with his famous Schr�dinger's cat theory.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 5 Mar 2012 @ 3:09am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Also see my post on quantum politics.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lawrence D'Oliveiro, 4 Mar 2012 @ 2:35pm

Banning Guns ...
... would certainly reduce harm from accidents, if nothing else.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Chronno S. Trigger (profile), 4 Mar 2012 @ 4:17pm
  
  Re: Banning Guns ...
  You sure about that? Banning guns won't stop people from owning guns, but it will stop companies for building those safety devices built to avoid accidents. Where are you going to put your gun when no one makes gun safes any more? Under the bed? How would you lock your gun if there are no more trigger locks? With a sock?
  
  Plus if you ban guns, then you ban hunting and the dear in PA would take over. (And to all the hippies, that would be a vary bad thing for the dear as well)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Lawrence D'Oliveiro, 4 Mar 2012 @ 5:23pm
    
    Re: Banning Guns ...
    Look at the research I linked to. And the table here, which shows the US way out of line in gun homicides compared to other non-third-world countries.
    
    And in the case of the US, it�s not just US citizenry that are being hurt by US guns, but Mexican citizenry across the border are being massacred as well.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Don't Toews Me Bro, 4 Mar 2012 @ 5:37pm
      
      Re: Re: Banning Guns ...
      Except that banning guns would be the death knell of my rights and your rights under the Constitution of the United States, ushering in a new age of Corporate-sponsored Marshal Law in America.
      
      The Founding Fathers insisted on the right to bear arms for a reason....
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 4 Mar 2012 @ 8:06pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Banning Guns ...
        Not only did they insist it was second only to free speech in terms of priority when it came to drafting the bill of rights. However unfortunately we may need to add "demonstrate reading comprehension" to the prerequisites for becoming a Representative or Senator as simply phrases such as "Congress shall make no law" and "shall not be infringed" seem to be beyond the comprehension capacity of way too many of them.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Lawrence D'Oliveiro, 5 Mar 2012 @ 3:46pm
        
        Re: The Founding Fathers insisted on the right to bear arms for a reason...
        What exactly was that reason, pray tell? The Second Amendment talks about a �militia�, but if you want to see what it�s like with armed �militia� groups roaming the countryside, just look at Somalia. Is that the kind of situation your Founding Fathers really had in mind? I don�t think so.
        
        So what is the point of thie Second Amendment, then? It seems more like a distraction, in that your US citizens seem quite willing to trade away basic freedoms elsewhere, just so long as your sacred �right to bear arms� remains untouched.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 4 Mar 2012 @ 6:29pm
      
      Re: Re: Banning Guns ...
      no thanks, we would like to keep our guns.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 4 Mar 2012 @ 8:20pm
      
      Re: Re: Banning Guns ...
      "which shows the US way out of line in gun homicides compared to other non-third-world countries."
      
      Right, other non-third-world countries in which people own guns don't have homicide rates like ours. e.g. Canada
      
      Americans are the problem not the firearms.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 5 Mar 2012 @ 3:14am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Banning Guns ...
        Americans are the problem not the firearms.
        
        ...if you combine the populations of Great Britain, France, Germany, Japan, Switzerland, Sweden, Denmark and Australia, you'll get a population roughly the size of the United States. We had 32,000 gun deaths last year, they had 112. Do you think it's because Americans are more homicidal by nature? Or do you think it's because those guys have gun control laws?
        -Toby Zeigler
        
        Hmm could go either way I guess...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 5 Mar 2012 @ 5:52am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Banning Guns ...
        Still sticking with it being an American problem.
        
        If you look at where gun homicides happen in the US you will find the large majority happen in urban centers where they are completely outlawed, e.g. Chicago. While rural areas have a larger % of gun owners but fewer incidents.
        
        Kids in the country grow up around and with guns. It is city kids who end up finding one and playing with it because its cool. The rural kids know its a dangerous tool and have had plenty of oppurtunity to handle them in controlled settings.
        
        Not to mention taking a large group of diverse cultures and saying the number of people is equal to america so you should see similiar numbers is ridiculous. The crime rates and overall homcide rates do not compare.
        
        Britian saw no change in its homicide statistics before and after they instituted the gun ban. People just found other ways to kill each other.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 4 Mar 2012 @ 7:19pm
    
    Re: Re: Banning Guns ...
    Don't you mean "deer?" It might also be true that wives as in the phrase "yes dear" would also take over in PA if guns were banned but I have seen no empirical evidence to support such a claim so I have no idea. :P
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Mar 2012 @ 3:51pm

If I couldn't comment anonymously, I wouldn't really bother. This also marks the fifth time that I've made the Funniest/Most Insightful Comment List.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 4 Mar 2012 @ 6:43pm
  
  Re:
  Agreed. If I couldn't comment anonymously, I probably wouldn't really bothered to comment too.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 5 Mar 2012 @ 2:25am
  
  Re:
  I probably still would, but I'd have to come up with some creative screen name, and I can't be bothered by that. Don't want the already extensive Google database on me to grow with my political comments. Sad to say I have to earn a living, and you never know what the political views of a potential future boss are...
  
  On the other hand, I have no illusion of being truly anonymous, and neither should you. If someone would seize the techdirt servers, it's probably pretty easy to figure out your IP, and you're one phone call away from disclosure of full name, address, and pretty much anything you ever did in your life online, plus your cellphone personal GPS tracker's coordinates.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Mar 2012 @ 3:56pm

" I realized that all four of the "funny" comments came from Anonymous Cowards. Perhaps allowing anonymous comments isn't such a bad idea, huh?"

However, if you violated their privacy as you are seemingly willing to do for others, you would discover the usual suspects at the end of most of them. Not really any more anonymous than that, sadly!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 4 Mar 2012 @ 3:57pm
  
  Re:
  Uh, what?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Chronno S. Trigger (profile), 4 Mar 2012 @ 4:21pm
    
    Re: Re:
    He's pissy because Mike has pointed out on several occasions that many of our AC trolls come from the same few IP addresses and those addresses come from the same people who he writes against. I can't remember the details off the top of my head, but I'm sure someone else could fill us in.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 4 Mar 2012 @ 5:07pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Let's just say that Mike doesn't appear as protective of privacy as he would like to claim, especially if it let's him look "clever".
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 4 Mar 2012 @ 5:14pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        No, no, no, what do you mean by this?
        
        However, if you violated their privacy as you are seemingly willing to do for others, you would discover the usual suspects at the end of most of them.
        
        Who are the usual suspects?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 4 Mar 2012 @ 6:28pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Indeed, he admitted to being the usual troll on every article.
        Like I said, he sticks out like a neo-nazi at the LGBT rally. No violation necessary, he violates himself, and then plays the victim card by blaming others. Typical MAFIAA goon.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Watchit (profile), 4 Mar 2012 @ 10:14pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        It's not like Mike broadcast who exactly these AC trolls were, just that they all came from the same IP addresses he knew, or something like that, right? It's kinda like having a house guest over, except it's a blog, you don't have to ask for his name or know anything about them, but you'll recognize them if they ever visit again.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Chargone (profile), 5 Mar 2012 @ 9:56am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        from memory of seeing such comments, in most cases the only loss of anonymity is that the origin of one comment is shown to be the same as the origin of another on a different article. ... and even then only if the reader can be arsed going and checking the article and hunting down the relevant comment.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 4 Mar 2012 @ 6:59pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Can you provide us with an example?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Anonymous Coward, 4 Mar 2012 @ 7:12pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I have read several of such comments. He merely pointed out that the anonymous coward in those particular instances were consistent. We assume, possibly correctly that he deduced this from IP addresses. He did not disclose those addresses, nor did he disclose what addressee those IP addresses came from.
        
        So just how did Mike not protect the privacy of anyone? Does he know whether I am using my Tor Browser today, or not? Does he know whether I use a Tor Browser everyday? Maybe he does, maybe he doesn't. But he really did not say, did he? No, he merely pointed out that some anonymous cowards did not remember to use their Tor Browsers on repetitive occasions, and were (to some extent) identifiable to the extent that IP addresses allow. Did he publish those IP addresses? No again. Did he identify the source of those IP addresses? No yet another time.
        
        So, just how did he not protect privacy?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 5 Mar 2012 @ 12:38am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        An anonymous post, to be truly anonymous, should have no tracking or tracing. When Mike moved to put the little marking next to posts, he effective decided that he would only pay lip service to the idea of anonymous, while making it much harder to be absolutely anonymous.
        
        Further, he has no qualms about going into the posting logs to look at IPs. He always says he doesn't, but he has outed people on more than one occassion (and not just me, but others) with a little too much accuracy to be just guessing or using posting styles alone.
        
        When an anonymous is somewhat less than anonymous, are they truly anonymous anymore?
        
        It's sort of key to some of the very stands that Mike makes, namely those that suggest the anonymous posting veil on other sites should be protected, that anonymous should just about always be protected, and so on. He rattles on about how uncovering these people, or the threat of uncovering them, would have a "chilling effect" on their free speech.
        
        He has no problems stooping down there to try a little chilling effect on posters he doesn't like here.
        
        Let's just say that this is an issue where Mike's true nature comes out. He will stand on the concept that he doesn't mention the anonymous poster's real name directly, but he has not been shy to out the firms they work for in the past. It's pretty slimy for a guy supposedly standing for free speech.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 5 Mar 2012 @ 1:07am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Don't you know how to use a proxy?
        
        Besides you people who do this for money not for ideals are slimier in your astroturfing trying to hide what you are. Lying spindoctors that get paid to astroturf everywhere.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Mike Masnick (profile), 5 Mar 2012 @ 3:58am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        It's pretty funny to watch you make a big stink when all it does is demonstrate (again) that you don't know what privacy means.
        
        You haven't been identified. Your privacy hasn't been violated.
        
        And you know it.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 5 Mar 2012 @ 5:09am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Comparing IPs or using something like the snowflakes to see continuity across multiple posts is a lot different than doing an IP whois and then requesting that the provider reveal a commentor's identity.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Chuck Norris' Enemy (deceased) (profile), 5 Mar 2012 @ 6:53am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I'm pretty sure it is only the same snowflake within the single post.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 5 Mar 2012 @ 6:46am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Seriously, what the fuck does this mean?
        
        However, if you violated their privacy as you are seemingly willing to do for others, you would discover the usual suspects at the end of most of them.
        
        Can you not explain this? No? Because you suck? Thought so.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 4 Mar 2012 @ 4:55pm
  
  Re:
  The only one who is violating your privacy is you Mr.DC.
  
  You stick out like a pervert at a schoolyard.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 4 Mar 2012 @ 6:58pm
  
  Re:
  If you think your privacy has been violated then find another blog.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Capitalist Lion Tamer (profile), 4 Mar 2012 @ 7:05pm
  
  Re:
  violated their privacy
  
  How? By looking at IP addresses? I can see the IP address AND email address of everyone that comments on my blog. If I have that information available and draw conclusions from it ("Mr. X and Mr. Y both have the same IP/email address. Obviously, they are the same person.") am I violating their privacy? I find that hard to believe.
  
  Now, if I publicly display the IP/email addresses of commenters for other commenters to see, then I would feel like I was violating their privacy. But if the info is provided by the commenting system, it's hardly a violation of privacy to look at it.
  
  The snowflakes in the comment threads also indicate which AC's are commenting multiple times. Anyone remotely familiar with this system can already draw their own conclusions. And when certain commenters argue in a familiar style, they pretty much out themselves with each additional argument.
  
  You really need to let go of the delusion that Techdirt's comment threads are made up of various Techdirt contributors posting anonymously at the behest of Mike. It's really one of the worst conspiracy theories I've heard. "The commenters are out to get me!" Please.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Anonymous Coward, 4 Mar 2012 @ 7:21pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Indeed. If I were walking down a street in the middle of Silicon Valley and Mike passed by, I would not know him from my closest acquaintances. I know what he looks like, I have watched a few of his videos. But know him? I think not.
    
    Some of his regular posters comment in the comments section, but with the exception of Dark Helmet clearly identify themselves, and Dark Helmets 'deception' is easily overcome by reading the blog for a while.
    
    The rest of us, anonymous, doubly anonymous, or under some pseudonym or an ID that may or may not reveal a true identity, are actually for the ideas we express, whether we agree with Mike or not.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 4 Mar 2012 @ 7:36pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "and Dark Helmets 'deception' is easily overcome by reading the blog for a while."
      
      Your deception is easily overcome by reading your comment. We don't need to read your past posts to overcome your deception, we know you are a paid corporate shill and your deception is that you pretend to represent the masses.
      
      That's the RIAA/MPAA's deception, they pretend that the pro-IP laws represent the masses. But the MPAA doesn't represent the masses, they represent their industry, indeed, it is their job to represent the industry, and so their deception is overcome by common sense. and why should politicians trust these industry shills to represent the masses when it is their job to represent their own profit margins?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Anonymous Coward, 5 Mar 2012 @ 3:17pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        If I am a paid corporate shill, then where is my money? Hmmmm?
        
        I believe in freedom and a free market (unlike the *IAA's), so what corporation do I represent? The masses? How about myself, which is not so strangely congruent with many many other people who also believe in freedom, and a free market.
        
        But thanks for playing.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Chargone (profile), 5 Mar 2012 @ 10:13am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      also pretty sure Dark Helmet was posting comments as such for a Long time before he was posting articles under his name.
      
      so that's less a deception and more a continuity thing in the comments running into 'articles aren't anonymous'. (not to mention i believe his Dark Helmet account does show up in blue boxes (as do other authors) on the articles he writes.
      
      so, yeah, one does have to stretch the definition of deception a bit to make that one line up. (hence the quote marks, i assume.)
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- JMT (profile), 4 Mar 2012 @ 7:36pm
  
  Re:
  If you were genuinely concerned about the risk of Mike violating your privacy, you wouldn't post comments here.
  
  Can you tell us the names of the people who've have their privacy violated? You must know, right? If you don't, there can't have been much of a privacy violation.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 5 Mar 2012 @ 12:39am
    
    Re: Re:
    "If you were genuinely concerned about the risk of Mike violating your privacy, you wouldn't post comments here."
    
    Welcome to the chilling effect. Can you explain that to Mike now?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 5 Mar 2012 @ 12:54am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      So privacy is not really your concern only trolling.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 5 Mar 2012 @ 3:12am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      None of your comments are worth while anyways, you're just a corporate shill. and even so, I still see you posting dumb things, so it's clear that Mike hasn't silenced you regardless.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - JMT (profile), 5 Mar 2012 @ 4:43am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      One man's 'chilling effect' is another man's 'too gutless to stand behind your previous comments'.
      
      And you're still posting, so obviously there's no chilling effect, proving my point.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Watchit (profile), 4 Mar 2012 @ 10:19pm

Ponies!
Did some one say ponies? there are not nearly enough ponies in this blog! o.0

http://static1.fjcdn.com/thumbnails/comments/Did+_5138cb92d030695690a61a2ff2e3e679.png

see , you don't have to be an AC to troll :D
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 Mar 2012 @ 1:42pm

Wow, first time I've ever had a front page comment over something I wrote that was laced thick with sarcasm.

I'm not sure how to feel except "Maybe I should considering adopting a name".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Apr 2012 @ 6:41pm

Brown and dim eco-friendly pieces might be donned only inexpensive Oakley Frogskin Sunglasses contacts function the colour is saying there is not significantly romantic relationship among the UV400 generally additional a layer of membrane. As for what colour to put on contacts which are generally aesthetic and every person�s pores and skin color, inexpensive replica oakley sunglasses clothes donned through the problem, Cheap Oakley Frogskin Sunglasses is incredibly fundamental with the summer，because it safeguards the eye balls loads of pals with the Oakley sunglasses of choice, generally far more interest could be the product or service price, good quality and design and so, in fact, the option of sunglasses lens colours are also incredibly important. So, what colour is generally a very good inexpensive Oakley sunglasses Statistics display that most folks commonly select dark font size="+2.415">Oakley Frogskin Sunglasses Outlet frame shade mainly because of fake Oakley sunglasses can withstand the path to keep away from the expression of mild reflected back again from your drinking water or light, or other conditions arising from your reflection, inexpensive Oakley sunglasses to provide the driver a obvious visual experience.Believe this could be the greatest question. Indeed, now for the industry sunglasses lens colours multi-colored and dazzling, colour will not harm inexpensive Oakley Frogskin Sunglasses Sale you to definitely carry a diverse feel. Brown University: Brown college recognized Oakley Outlet low cost as the most effective sunglasses contacts in color.Cheap Oakley Sunglasses far more designer. oakley sunglasses outlet far more artist new Oakley sunglasses.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]