Tor Asks For Help In Keeping Net Anonymity As An Option For Anyone, At Any Site
from the making-the-NSA-cry dept
Before Snowden, Tor was an important but rather obscure tool, mostly of interest to those living under oppressive regimes who wanted to access the Internet freely without risking imprisonment or worse. Post-Snowden, things are more complicated. On the one hand, it is clearly one of the key tools that we can all use to thwart attempts by intelligence agencies to monitor what we are doing online. On the other hand, for that very reason, Tor has been the subject of serious attempts by the NSA, GCHQ and the Russian Ministry of Internal Affairs to compromise it so that they can gain information about its users. The fact that, as far as the NSA and GCHQ are concerned,Tor -- "The Onion Router" -- "stinks", as one of the slides leaked by Snowden puts it, is an excellent reason for people to support its recent "call to arms":
We used to think there are two main ways that the Tor network can fail. First, legal or policy pressure can make it so nobody is willing to run a relay. Second, pressure on or from Internet Service Providers can reduce the number of places willing to host exit relays, which in turn squeezes down the anonymity that the network can provide. Both of these threats are hard to solve, but they are challenges that we've known about for a decade, and due in large part to strong ongoing collaborations we have a pretty good handle on them.
But lately, the people behind Tor have realized there is a new problem they must deal with:
We missed a third threat to Tor's success: a growing number of websites treat users from anonymity services differently. Slashdot doesn't let you post comments over Tor, Wikipedia won't let you edit over Tor, and Google sometimes gives you a captcha when you try to search (depending on what other activity they've seen from that exit relay lately). Some sites like Yelp go further and refuse to even serve pages to Tor users.
The rest of the post explores possible solutions to this growing rejection of Tor, such as technical mechanisms that allow anonymous users to interact with websites, and social mechanisms -- using a community to help police problems with anonymous users. But as the post notes, these haven't worked too well in past. It therefore suggests a third approach:
The solution I envision is to get a person who is both technical and good at activism to focus on this topic. Step one is to enumerate the set of websites and other Internet services that handle Tor connections differently from normal connections, and look for patterns that help us identify the common (centralized) services that impact many sites. At the same time, we should make a list of solutions -- technical and social -- that are in use today. There are a few community-led starts on the Tor wiki already, like the DontBlockMe page and a List of Services Blocking Tor.
It's good to see such a key project both identifying problems and coming up with possible ways to tackle them. The post contains further details of future plans, the people and organizations involved -- and even an offer of funding for those who want to help ensure that The Onion Router's stink continues to make the people at the NSA and GCHQ cry.
Step two is to sort the problem websites based on how amenable they would be to our help. Armed with the toolkit of options we found in step one, we should go to the first (most promising) site on the list and work with them to understand their problem. Ideally we can adapt one of the ideas from the toolkit; otherwise we'll need to invent and develop a new approach tailored to their situation and needs. Then we should go to the second site on the list with our (now bigger) toolkit, and so on down the list. Once we have some success stories, we can consider how to scale better, such as holding a conference where we invite the five best success cases plus the next five unsolved sites on our list.
Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and +glynmoody on Google+
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
Filed Under: 3rd party services, anonymity, privacy, tor
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Really?
I thought it was for child pornographers and people trying to get away with spamming Wikipedia and review sites.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Really?
More than that of course, Tor faces the uncertain legal reality of what is starting to happen to exit node operators, who are finding that there is some potential they may be responsible for what goes through their service. They may not be liable, but it looks like some of them are going to have to go to court to try to prove it.
There is very little that can be done to make Tor look good. It's too obvious in it's uses.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Really?
There, now. Fixed that (the conceptual mistake, not the grammar one) for you...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Really?
It also has the problem of shifting liability to the exit nodes. It's very likely that an individual willingly sharing his internet connection with unknown people could end up in big legal trouble. It's hard to call yourself an innocent service provider when you know generally what Tor is used for.
Darknet yourself :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Really?
Vehicles are mostly used to break the law too, so are masks, and even... WORDS! Which one will you decide to ban next?
Or like the Sony doctrine is the justification that it could be used for nefarious purposes overridden by its legitimate usages for you?
Think carefully, because us who have been in the industry of both IT, Government & law enforcement for a long long time know what WILL occur if people like yourself get there way and restrict usage to things that are too easily controlled and abused by those with power, egos, and evil intent to control the serfs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Really?
More than 100 million animals are reported killed by hunters each year. That number does not include the millions of animals for which kill figures are not maintained by state wildlife agencies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Really?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Really?
Well, Americans are an exceptional case in that regard, the are intent on arming themselves to the teeth in the odd belief that it makes them safer. It's sort of like the old mutually assure destruction thing. It's stupid, but easy to convince yourself it's good.
Thankfully, the "right to break the law" isn't in the constitution, so it doesn't stand in the same stead.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Really?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Really?
An example, the UK has banned hand guns, which means anyone wishing to compete in Olympic pistol has to be able to commute to the continent to practice. Meanwhile criminals still use guns in the commission of crimes. The ban has not inconvenienced the criminals at all, because they were already getting their guns through illegal channels.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Really?
2011 USA Firearm deaths per 100,000 population: 10.3
Guess all of those gun-toting British criminals must be really lousy shots.
This has fuck-all to do with TOR, though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Really?
I guess its way far more important to bring in tougher laws to stop a person from copying a DVD to protect copyright then it is to ban the sale of guns that is used to kill and murder people. some people morals are sadly displaced if they believe that protecting copyright is far more important than protecting a life.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Really?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Really?
Citation?
There are hundreds of millions, BILLIONS of firearms in existance. I would think that most firearms are used for lawful purposes, whether that be hunting, those used by the (para-)military forces, or just hanging on a wall and never used at all.
Sure, MANY are used for illegal purposes, but when you are talking billions of firearms, a few thousand (or even hundred thousand) a year may be many, but it is far, far away from most.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Really?
Are there any actual statistics on how much Tor traffic is used for unsavory means? Every article I read about Tor (here and elsewhere) always states that it's used by people under oppressive regimes, then in the comments there's always someone who states it's only used by child pornographers, so why do we need it anyway.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Really?
Its more a case that the bad uses of TOR get headlines, while the good uses are ignored. "Oh look people are using TOR to bus drugs makes a good headline". While TOR used to let the world know hat a repressive regime is doing is ignored in favor is ignored in favor of "Oh look what that bad regime is doing to its people".
Demonizing TOR does little to stop illegal trade in drugs and guns or child porn etc, the buyers and sellers will just move their activity elsewhere, it does however help to silence those most desperately in need of anonymity, those living under a repressive regime.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Really?
Publishing information about "OMG!!! we're all gonna die" sells like hotcakes.
Sad but true.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Really?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Really?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Really?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Really?
"All the way in Hong Kong? Or my TOR exit is there? Or my VPN exit? I don't know, I don't control it. Perhaps you should worry more about the message and nothing else."
I didn't say I was using Tor. Learn to read.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Really?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Really?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Really?
It would be good to you to access Tor and hang around before talking about it. Also, the post you replied to seems to be an attempt at irony (at least from previous comments from the same guy/girl). But I'll forgive you for that failure, it must be hard to you to identify such humor with your head deeply and firmly stuck in your ass.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Really?
This is sarcasm - right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hypocrisy much?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hypocrisy much?
Where is the hypocrisy? We're pointing out that this is an issue, and highlighting that Tor is looking for ways to try to deal with it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Hypocrisy much?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Hypocrisy much?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Hypocrisy much?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hypocrisy much?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hypocrisy much?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hypocrisy much?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hypocrisy much?
On the other hand, I didn't see a CAPTCHA when I posted, so it could be a choice of 'No javascript, comment goes to moderation' and 'Javascript enabled, CAPTCHA allows you to bypass moderation step'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Hypocrisy much?
But aren't you being a hypocrite? Over the past few years, I've had many, many posts routed to your spam filter when I tried to post through Tor. When posts are routed to your spam filter, sometimes it takes hours until they show up and sometimes they don't show up at all. So your site is a part of the "third threat to Tor's success: a growing number of websites treat users from anonymity services differently." I know for a fact that you have treated posters using Tor differently. Do you deny this? (Since you deny that you're routing posts from my home IP to your spam filter, I'm sure you won't respond. Sadly, integrity and honesty don't appear to be your strong suit.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Hypocrisy much?
Step two is to sort the problem websites based on how amenable they would be to our help. Armed with the toolkit of options we found in step one, we should go to the first (most promising) site on the list and work with them to understand their problem. Ideally we can adapt one of the ideas from the toolkit; otherwise we'll need to invent and develop a new approach tailored to their situation and needs.
Currently, techdirt clearly has some sort of problem that arises from Tor IPs. Techdirt has implemented a solution of their own devising and which matches Techdirt's values. That solution is captchas. I'd guess the problem is likely comment spam, though I can't be sure. But that solution is entirely reasonable if Techdirt wants to minimize comment spam without the need for heavy costly human powered moderation, while permitting most comments to appear in real time.
It's likely Tor as an entity either doesn't know problem Techdirt is experiencing with Tor is or Tor a notion but don't have a solution they can offer techdirt or the 'solutions' some Tor supporters offer does not solve Techdirt's problem as defined by techdirt. (The above grumbling which seems to suggest that a user being presented a captcha is somehow unacceptable also suggests that some Tor users simply do not recognize that Techdirt might actually have valid reasons to test whether a particular connection is or is not a bot.)
I think Tor is wise to decide to implement their stage 2 and begin to ask those running sites (e.g. Techdirt, Wikipedia, google) what problems they are seeing, and apply Tor's own resources to trying to find solutions help Tor's customers (i.e. "Tor users") get the quality experience Tor customers hope for. Working to improve the experience for Tor users should be Tor's responsibility, not everyone else's.
Meanwhile, those running their own sites (e.g. Techdirt) can spend time protecting their own sites from the sorts of things one does see over over anonymous proxies of all sorts-- including Tor -- and from some service providers with bad reputations--- like automated sign up bots, comment spam, hack attempts, unauthorized vulnerability testing (done to find exploits) and other things that do happen over Tor. To the extent that Tor is sometimes used for these things, Tor IPs will be blocked altogether, presented captchas or treated differently from IPs associated with providers that cancel access of those customers that indulge in these sorts of behaviors.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Hypocrisy much?
Techdirt is all pro-anonymous, pro free speech. Yet the service they say is perhaps the strongest way to protect free speech is blocked, restricted, or otherwise shackled by a combination of an over enthusiastic edge cache system (cloudflare) and local systems rules. Forcing people using Tor to turn on java in order to be able to access the site isn't a very good way to do things.
Perhaps all of this is just an admission that truly anonymous access leads to bad behavior. It's not what anyone wants to say, but actions speak louder than words sometimes!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Hypocrisy much?
OTOH, using a javascript captcha (or worse, Java, as someone suggested TD is using) is bad.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Hypocrisy much?
Consider the possibility that you're triggering the spam filter because, surprise surprise, you've been spamming.
That's really not shocking. "Mike Masnick just hates it when copyright law is enforced" is the cleverest thing you copyright boys think you have to say, and you routinely post on articles even when copyright isn't involved.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Hypocrisy much?
I just ran a test. I did a clean install of Tor, and selected "New Identity" to get assigned a random IP. Here are the results:
1. 171.25.193.131 / Germany / captcha / spam filter
2. 89.207.132.76 / anonymous proxy / captcha / posted
3. 37.221.161.235 / anonymous proxy / captcha / spam filter
4. 178.175.139.140 / Belgium / captcha / couldn't post because captcha
5. 178.63.154.93 / anonymous proxy / captcha / spam filter
6. 5.104.224.246 / anonymous proxy / captcha / posted
7. 77.109.141.138 / anonymous proxy / captcha / spam filter
8. 37.187.39.124 / anonymous proxy / no captcha / posted
9. 81.89.96.88 / Germany / captcha / couldn't post because captcha
10. 77.95.231.11 / anonymous proxy / captcha / posted
So, 9/10 posts were caught by the captcha filter. 2/10 posts could not be posted at all because captcha wouldn't display the captcha image. 4/10 posts were routed to the spam filter. And only 4/10 posts were posted immediately.
Mike lambasts others who lack transparency, yet he won't give us an explanation of why he treats Tor differently. Mike claims to believe that anonymity is sacred, yet he punishes those who use Tor. When posts don't show up immediately, either because they're routed to the spam filter or trapped by the captcha image failing to appear, he makes it so that anonymous users using Tor can't take part in the conversation on Techdirt.
In typical Mike fashion, Mike tries to brush this off: "Where is the hypocrisy? We're pointing out that this is an issue, and highlighting that Tor is looking for ways to try to deal with it." The hypocrisy, Mike, is that Glyn's post makes it appear that Techdirt supports Tor's efforts to make Tor more attractive for users. But the fact that you yourself are part of the problem that Tor identifies means that you're not part of the solution.
Why not be a man and admit you're part of the very same problem this article is about, Mike? Take responsibility for your own actions. Give us some of that transparency you demand of others.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hypocrisy much?
The image not displaying strongly suggests that you have either bandwidth problems to Techdirt, and/or problems with DNS resolution. Because of a marginal broadband connection I can suffer the same problems, which probably include IP address changes, and have noticed that this results in page elements going missing, and also tripping of the spam filter. Some of your problems could be due to a poor quality connection to Techdirt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hypocrisy much?
I hit refresh a few times, and the entire page would reload yet the captcha image was never displayed. For whatever reason, that particular Tor connection wouldn't display it. But this just demonstrates the problem Tor is identifying as a threat to Tor's success. If Mike wasn't treating Tor users differently, I wouldn't have had the problem posting on Techdirt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hypocrisy much?
I hit refresh a few times, and the entire page would reload yet the captcha image was never displayed. For whatever reason, that particular Tor connection wouldn't display it. But this just demonstrates the problem Tor is identifying as a threat to Tor's success. If Mike wasn't treating Tor users differently, I wouldn't have had the problem posting on Techdirt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hypocrisy much?
As to comments being trapped as possible You have listed problems, without any supporting evidence, spam, that could well be because of their content, such as being total gibberish, and that could be the problem, rather this sites handling of TOR.
Yes you have had problems, but no you have not given enough evidence to demonstrate the root cause, but rather jumped to blaming the site.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hypocrisy much?
As to comments being trapped as possible You have listed problems, without any supporting evidence, spam, that could well be because of their content, such as being total gibberish, and that could be the problem, rather this sites handling of TOR.
Yes you have had problems, but no you have not given enough evidence to demonstrate the root cause, but rather jumped to blaming the site.
Mike tacitly admitted that he uses captcha for Tor users, so I think that's settled. As far as posts through Tor being sent to the spam filter, I suggest you test this yourself. I notice that Mike isn't denying it, nor is he giving us any transparency about how he handles Tor. For a guy that claims to promote anonymity and transparency, you'd expect better than this. Where's the transparency? Why does he treat Tor users differently if he really believes that anonymity and Tor are important?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hypocrisy much?
The second part is the issue at hand. Techdirt uses Cloudflare page cache / CDN, which often uses various devices to detect if someone is human, including CAPTCHA. The original image that someone posted up early was in fact the Cloudflare CAPTCHA. There are options within Cloudflare to disable that or make it occur less often.
Beyond that, Techdirt itself has code in place to stop posts from being posted directly to the site, and instead automatically flags them for "moderation". That moderation queue is checked maybe once per business day, which means that if your comments fall into that bin, you are pretty much censored off the site, your comments are generally added long after the discussion is over.
Combine all that with the aforementioned use of the report button to block or shut off unpopular comments, and you have a situation where there are plenty of ways on Techdirt for "undesirable" comments to not make it onto the site.
The solution for Techdirt is pretty simple: Adjust Cloudflare (or drop them) to get rid of the CAPTCHA issue. Get rid of the automatic moderation filter. Make the effects of the moderation button to add a "please check this comment" flag for moderations to look at the comment, but do not disable it.
That would remove many of the things that contribute to semi-unintentional censorship.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hypocrisy much?
Inquiring minds want to know.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hypocrisy much?
As for the "usual crew" I don't know the exact number, but it only takes a very clicks on the report button to banish a post. It seems that the same sorts of posts generally get canned. While not proven, it's pretty reasonable to assume the same people are offended each time - or at least think they are doing the right thing by getting rid of the offending discussion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hypocrisy much?
Right. The "report" button says it's for comments that are "abusive, spam, trollish, or otherwise inappropriate." Yet his users treat it like a downvote on a post they don't agree with. And is there any leadership from Mike reminding his flock that dissenting views should be encouraged? Of course not. He's glad his critics get shut down. He can't stand the criticism.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hypocrisy much?
This is interesting, care to expound upon details or would that be too difficult for you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hypocrisy much?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hypocrisy much?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hypocrisy much?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hypocrisy much?
Yeah, for all of Mike's talk about how important dissenting views are, he goes out of his way to shut down dissenting views on his own blog. He really can't take any criticism, and he runs from debate faster than anyone I've ever met. Heck, he blocks my IP and he even deleted my old user account, yet he won't even acknowledge that he's done this. Transparency? Nope. Leadership? Hell no. I love it when he posts about the importance of the search for truth with journalism like he did this week. I wonder if he actually believes that's what he does. You'd think someone searching for truth would at least stand behind his own words. You'd think he'd welcome debate on the issues. But say something "bad" about Mike or dare to challenge his views, and you're shut down. That's Techdirt for ya.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hypocrisy much?
Is it Mike or the "usual crew"? This is so confusing.
Lots of accusations, little evidence. Sounds like bullshit to me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hypocrisy much?
Simply untrue. But if you wish to post lies, go ahead. Most sites completely ban users. We have never done that.
He really can't take any criticism, and he runs from debate faster than anyone I've ever met.
We've answered you on this front many times. I'll post this again, even though I thought we were done with this. Did you go away for a while and then come back with a new account pretending people would forget this?
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120818/01171420087/funniestmost-insightful-comments-week-te chdirt.shtml#c1210
And that reminds me, that you usually go on these idiotic diatribes claiming I'm not responding during weekends when I'm away from my computer. Note to you: I tend not to be at my computer on weekends. I'm not avoiding you, I'm living my life.
Heck, he blocks my IP and he even deleted my old user account, yet he won't even acknowledge that he's done this.
Neither of these things are true. Can you tell me what account you think was deleted? And as far as I know we've never blocked an IP.
As I've explained to you and others in the past, we use a series of tools and filters to protect the site. We currently use a combination of a different anti-spam tools to protect the site from the well over 1000 spam comments that try to get through per day. If you're getting caught in the spam filter, perhaps it's because of your own actions. Either way, we do go through the spam comments multiple times per day and release any legit comments.
And we recently did start using Cloudflare after someone hit us with a DDoS and tried to extort us to stop. So we needed some increased DDoS protection, and Cloudflare appeared to offer the best solution. I'm looking into the issue of people getting CAPTCHAs to see if we can tweak it to make that happen less.
But, again, there has been no hypocrisy here. In both cases, we're relying on third party services Cloudflare and a few different anti-spam comment filters, and those often recognize that bad users come via tor. We recognize that's an issue, which is why we thought this was a good post -- and are happy that tor is looking for ways to deal with this issue. We wanted this posted because we're hopeful that there are better solutions as well that will help allow the good actors through while still stopping the bad actors.
Either way, your claims that I am somehow hypocritical on anonymity are false. We have always allowed anonymous posting. We are looking for better ways to deal with good users of Tor, which is a big part of why we posted this story. But we need to do basic levels of protections against bad actors or there would be no site here at all.
You'd think someone searching for truth would at least stand behind his own words.
I do. And your misleading attacks, which we've debunked before, don't change any of that.
You'd think he'd welcome debate on the issues
As always, we have always welcomed debate and continue to. The problem is that you don't "debate." You do this kind of bullshit: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120818/01171420087/funniestmost-insightful-comments-week-techdir t.shtml#c1210
But say something "bad" about Mike or dare to challenge his views, and you're shut down. That's Techdirt for ya.
Simply not true. The fact that you are still posting (and, that you had to lie in claiming we shut down your account) kinda proves that you're full of it. You have not been shut down, and you have not been interested in legitimate debate. Every time I've tried to have a conversation with you, you bring out your lies and "strawman mike" in which anything I say that doesn't agree with the strawman mike you've built up in your head must be me being dishonest. Then you throw a tirade in the comments, often disrupting plenty of other interesting conversations.
I told you years ago that if you stopped acting like a toddler then perhaps people would treat you with more respect. But don't turn around and pretend that people treating you like a toddler throwing a tantrum is due to anything other than your own behavior (which we've detailed many times before, but most completely here: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120818/01171420087/funniestmost-insightful-comments-week-techdir t.shtml#c1210 )
As per in the past, this will be my last comment to you on this particular topic. And, no, it's not because I'm "running away" though I'm quite sure you will make that false claim. The reasons are detailed in that link. I have and will debate with lots of people who disagree with me. I have debated with you in the past. What I will not do is engage repeatedly with a toddler throwing a tantrum. I explain myself firmly and then go away, hoping that, maybe, one day, the toddler will grow up. Unfortunately, it appears that in the years since we wrote that comment you have chosen not to grow up, and have now added lies about us deleting accounts and blocking you from the site. Neither is true.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hypocrisy much?
Also, while TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE no IPs are blocked, I can tell you that you have staff members who actively engage in blocking people they don't like. I have made the tests, and discovered that automated blocks were put in place based on post IP, post name, and so on. Those are not anti-spam blocks (I don't spam), but rather put in place to stop me (and others, I gather) from posting. So while it may not be your intention, I can tell you that from the outside looking in, it appears that someone is using the tools you have provided to accomplish something that you appear to be against.
I will also say that I have had accounts on Techdirt in the past that while not technically shut down, were moved into the "hold post for moderation" level, which essentially means that any post made would be held for moderation for 24-36 hours. Again, while it's not technically shutting an account down, it's limiting the speech of those you (or your staff) don't want to hear from. Sort of a Techdirt version of prior restraint.
What I will not do is engage repeatedly with a toddler throwing a tantrum.
I think the problem here is that while you feel you have explained yourself firmly, for many of us we can read a large amount of wiggle room in your statements. So when people who don't agree with you call you out on them, you shouldn't be surprised. Again, I understand that you feel you have completely and unequivocally explained yourself but from the outside looking it, it's just not all that.
It's not to harrass or annoy you, it's just to point out that what you feel is statements in absolute generally don't read that way. As an example:
It's not okay because I don't think it's okay. You're asking a moral question. There is no answer to a moral question other than "that's what I believe." I don't think it's right to ignore the wishes of a content creator.
But that, of course, is entirely separate from what that content creator can do to deal with the fact that many (perhaps most) others have a different moral view on the issue.
Arguing over morals is a waste of time, because it doesn't move the discussion forward.
The problem here is that you haven't said much. You basically said that an opinion in this area is about morals, and morals don't matter. You may not think it's right to ignore the wishes of a content creator, but within a few posts of this you are offering up ways to profit from piracy. So even on a moral level, you don't think it's right but you have no problems profiting from it (see the contradiction?).
So again, while you may feel that you answered the questions completely and given a full answer, you didn't really accomplish that. It's sort of "drugs are bad, but here's my business model for importing heroin". That leaves you a whole lot of space to work in, don't you think?
This isn't to argue. it's only to point out to you that what you believe you have done may not jibe with what is seen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hypocrisy much?
What you are demanding is not free speech, but rather a demand that people must listen to your rantings. Free speech does not guarantee an audience, but goes along with other peoples rights to ignore speech, or mark it as probably not worth reading.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hypocrisy much?
Remember, you always have the right to ignore those you don't like. However, your dislike doesn't give you the right to make them shut up.
The report button initially had a good use. Now it's become a "I don't like this person's opinion" button, which leads to the hypocritical problem we have this weekend, where antidirt's test of Techdirt using Tor was the featured quote at the top of the story for a while until enough people decided to censor his post. It seems enough people found it insightful as to mark it so, but the "report" button over rode that choice.
It's a subtle form of censorship that people who claim to support free speech can use thinking they aren't denying anyone their rights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hypocrisy much?
There's a certain point to that in other contexts (specifically in areas of government-restricted speech) but this isn't one of them. The owners and commenters on Techdirt have every right to place whatever limits they like on comments that, for whatever reason, they feel don't contribute to the kind of community they're trying to cultivate.
The Popehat comment policy says it best:
"This is our living room, not your living room. You comment as a guest, so please act like a guest we'd like to invite over again."
For my part I've never seen any examples of any comments being squashed unfairly. (Simply because they take an opposing point of view, for example.) Moreover, anyone who wants can still read the flagged posts; I often do just that, to gain context, even though I almost invariably find myself agreeing with whoever clicked the report button. But flagging and collapsing comments doesn't violate anyone's right to free speech. It's nothing more than the other speakers/listeners collectively observing that they aren't interested in hearing it any more, and giving anyone who follows the ability to quickly skip it. (But still read it if they choose.)
Or, to make the same basic point with stick figures: https://xkcd.com/1357/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hypocrisy much?
In fairness, I have seen this happen from time to time, but it's fairly rare. What's much more common is that the "opposing viewpoint" is expressed along with abusive language, outright lies, is spammed or offtopic, or other legitimate reasons to report the post.
The "report" button is imperfect, but short of implementing a full-fledged reader moderation system (like, for example, Slashdot does), it's not a terrible solution to a very real problem: those types of comments detract from real, valuable conversations and debate and tend to drive readers away.
The report button is nothing like censorship. Most sites would just engage in real censorship: deleting comments and banning trolls. Techdirt has come up with a compromise that lets them avoid such censorship without letting the comments become so poisonous that they are worthless.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hypocrisy much?
Then you haven't been looking. "Whatever" has a post above that's being hidden: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140904/09583328416/tor-asks-help-keeping-net-anonymity-as-option -anyone-any-site.shtml#c976
What does he say that deserves the post being reported?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hypocrisy much?
You do not create a hospitable environment for dissenting views. You run from debates. You won’t stand behind your posts, no matter how ridiculous your claims. You offer no leadership when your minions “report” any posts that disagree with you. If you want to prove that you don’t run from debates, then debate me. You pick the topic. You have all your minions jumping in and ganging up on me. I don’t care. I’m happy to do it.
We've answered you on this front many times. I'll post this again, even though I thought we were done with this. Did you go away for a while and then come back with a new account pretending people would forget this?
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120818/01171420087/funniestmost-insightful-comments-week-te chdirt.shtml#c1210
And that reminds me, that you usually go on these idiotic diatribes claiming I'm not responding during weekends when I'm away from my computer. Note to you: I tend not to be at my computer on weekends. I'm not avoiding you, I'm living my life.
I created a new account because I was unable to log into my old account. It told me there was no such account. I see that I can log in to that account now, so thank you for restoring it. I’d love to go through that post you always link to sentence by sentence. But something tells me you have no interest in that. Wouldn’t want the truth to come out, right?
Neither of these things are true. Can you tell me what account you think was deleted? And as far as I know we've never blocked an IP.
You know which account it is. Again, thanks for restoring it. And you know that my home IP is flagged so that my posts originating from it go to the spam filter. You could fix that if you wanted to, but you don’t want to. Not sure of my IP? I’ll gladly supply you with that info privately. Just tell me where to send it, and we could have this issue fixed today.
As I've explained to you and others in the past, we use a series of tools and filters to protect the site. We currently use a combination of a different anti-spam tools to protect the site from the well over 1000 spam comments that try to get through per day. If you're getting caught in the spam filter, perhaps it's because of your own actions. Either way, we do go through the spam comments multiple times per day and release any legit comments.
You know exactly what happened last summer. I was critical of your assessment of the charges against Kim Dotcom. I posted a lengthy explanation of why you were wrong. My home IP was routed to the spam filter. Less than 24 hours later, my phone’s IP was routed to the spam filter. I’d log in with a proxy and criticize you, and that IP would be routed to the spam filter. It was a game that went on for a couple of weeks where each new IP I used would be routed to the spam filter. Don’t play dumb. You know I’m your biggest critic, and you know exactly what you did to silence my criticism.
And we recently did start using Cloudflare after someone hit us with a DDoS and tried to extort us to stop. So we needed some increased DDoS protection, and Cloudflare appeared to offer the best solution. I'm looking into the issue of people getting CAPTCHAs to see if we can tweak it to make that happen less.
Thank you for the explanation. I don’t think the captcha thing is that bad, though it is inconvenient for users of Tor.
But, again, there has been no hypocrisy here. In both cases, we're relying on third party services Cloudflare and a few different anti-spam comment filters, and those often recognize that bad users come via tor. We recognize that's an issue, which is why we thought this was a good post -- and are happy that tor is looking for ways to deal with this issue. We wanted this posted because we're hopeful that there are better solutions as well that will help allow the good actors through while still stopping the bad actors.
The fact remains that many posts from Tor are being routed to the spam filter, and this makes it difficult if not impossible for users of Tor to participate on Techdirt. You are part of the very same problem Tor identifies since you treat Tor differently. Own up to it.
Either way, your claims that I am somehow hypocritical on anonymity are false. We have always allowed anonymous posting. We are looking for better ways to deal with good users of Tor, which is a big part of why we posted this story. But we need to do basic levels of protections against bad actors or there would be no site here at all.
You have referred to me in a personally identifiable way in the comments. You have revealed that certain posters are posting from Washington DC to discredit them. You have quoted my anonymous posts here elsewhere. When someone is critical of you, you don’t completely respect their anonymity. And you do in fact send posts from Tor and many other proxies to your spam filter. That’s hypocritical. Own up to it.
I do. And your misleading attacks, which we've debunked before, don't change any of that.
Again, you pick the topic and we’ll have a talk. Let’s see you actually give honest answers without weasel words. You won’t.
As always, we have always welcomed debate and continue to. The problem is that you don't "debate." You do this kind of bullshit: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120818/01171420087/funniestmost-insightful-comments-week-techdir t.shtml#c1210
I know you think that link is your “get out of the debate” card, but all you’re doing is giving excuses for why you won’t have a debate. Stop stalling. Stop making excuses. Again, I’m happy to go through that post line by line to explain myself. But you don’t want that. I get it. You’re scared of me.
Simply not true. The fact that you are still posting (and, that you had to lie in claiming we shut down your account) kinda proves that you're full of it. You have not been shut down, and you have not been interested in legitimate debate. Every time I've tried to have a conversation with you, you bring out your lies and "strawman mike" in which anything I say that doesn't agree with the strawman mike you've built up in your head must be me being dishonest. Then you throw a tirade in the comments, often disrupting plenty of other interesting conversations.
No one’s throwing a tirade. Debate me right now and prove that you’re right. Of course, you’re just giving us excuses on why you won’t. Maybe one day you’ll be able to link to the post where you actually had a conversation where you supplied direct and honest answers to direct and honest questions. Wouldn’t that be better?
I told you years ago that if you stopped acting like a toddler then perhaps people would treat you with more respect. But don't turn around and pretend that people treating you like a toddler throwing a tantrum is due to anything other than your own behavior (which we've detailed many times before, but most completely here: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120818/01171420087/funniestmost-insightful-comments-week-techdir t.shtml#c1210 )
Excuses. Excuses. Excuses. I’m not acting like a toddler. I’m criticizing you. I know your only defense is to attack me personally, since you can’t actually discuss the merits of anything that actually matters.
As per in the past, this will be my last comment to you on this particular topic. And, no, it's not because I'm "running away" though I'm quite sure you will make that false claim. The reasons are detailed in that link. I have and will debate with lots of people who disagree with me. I have debated with you in the past. What I will not do is engage repeatedly with a toddler throwing a tantrum. I explain myself firmly and then go away, hoping that, maybe, one day, the toddler will grow up. Unfortunately, it appears that in the years since we wrote that comment you have chosen not to grow up, and have now added lies about us deleting accounts and blocking you from the site. Neither is true.
Oh look. More excuses. Just personal attacks. Why are you scared, Mike? I suspect it’s because you know you don’t have the goods. Prove me wrong? Not likely. Sadly, all you can do is attack me personally. Again, you pick the topic and I’ll be there. No childishness. No running away. No personal attacks. Let’s talk about the merits. This talking about talking about it but not actually talking about it is dumb. Is this the best you can do? I appreciate you taking the time to respond to me. I know it was the weekend, and I wasn't thinking your were running away. There's no need for all the personal attacks, and no need for the excuses. Unless, of course, excuses are all you really have.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hypocrisy much?
You don't need your anonymity; you regularly shit on it by posting the same things over and over again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hypocrisy much?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hypocrisy much?
Answer me this: Do you think Mike demonstrates a respect for posters' anonymity when he comes into the comments and explicitly links my current username to my old username? I don't. It shows a complete lack of respect for my anonymity. And funny too how he only does this sort of thing with his critics. Mike's not hard to figure out. You just have to open your eyes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hypocrisy much?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hypocrisy much?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hypocrisy much?
On this one point: I did no such thing. You identified yourself as the same comment via your comments. It's obvious to anyone who is reading the comments that you are the same person. As far as I know, you may be using different email addresses and IPs. I would have no way of linking any two accounts anyway, other than by the obvious: that you gave it away by your comments.
Separate from that, I have not revealed who you are, meaning that you are still anonymous.
Finally, despite your repeated LIES, we did not delete your account. We did not block you. I did not "reinstate" your account. Hell, I don't even know if there's a way to do such a thing in our system.
You have a sick desire to blame your own problems on me, and I don't know why that is. But I do know that it is simply yet another example of why engaging with you is futile. I have, do and will engage with people who can debate without throwing a childish tantrum. That, unfortunately, is a set of people that apparently does not include yourself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hypocrisy much?
I did not ever say I'm the same person who has posted under another user account. People may have suspected it, but I never said it explicitly. You, however, did. You said, "Did you go away for a while and then come back with a new account pretending people would forget this?" and then you posted a link which connects this new account to my old one. You confirmed for anyone who suspected as much that it's true. That's not respecting my anonymity. And of course you did it only so you could attack me personally (rather than have a substantive discussion on the merits, which is all that I want).
Separate from that, I have not revealed who you are, meaning that you are still anonymous.
Respecting your posters' anonymity means more than not simply giving out their real names. I know you don't get it, but that's my point. Thanks for confirming that you think anonymity only means someone's real name. That's sad, but I'm glad you admit it.
Finally, despite your repeated LIES, we did not delete your account. We did not block you. I did not "reinstate" your account. Hell, I don't even know if there's a way to do such a thing in our system.
This is so sad it hurts. I was being blocked left and right last summer and you know it. My home IP is currently being routed to the spam filter. You could fix this today if you wanted to, but you don't want to. Why don't you just work with me to fix it if you don't think my home IP shouldn't be routed in this way? Let your actions speak for themselves if you really want me to not be blocked. It is a fact that I could not login to my old account before, yet now I can. Of course you deny it. You can't even admit what went down last summer. Maybe that wasn't you. Maybe that was one of your flunkies. But you know it happened. I could dig up the links if you really want me to. I don't really care about that, though.
You have a sick desire to blame your own problems on me, and I don't know why that is. But I do know that it is simply yet another example of why engaging with you is futile. I have, do and will engage with people who can debate without throwing a childish tantrum. That, unfortunately, is a set of people that apparently does not include yourself.
There's no childish tantrums. That's just an excuse you pull out over and over rather than have a discussion about something that matters. Want to prove me wrong? Then have a meaningful discussion with me where you don't dodge the tough questions. That's all I want and you know it. But you will never have that conversation, will you? And it's not just me. There's certain tough questions you won't answer no matter who asks them, and you know it. Instead of pretending like I don't want a substantive discussion, why don't you engage in that discussion with me. You won't do it. And it has nothing to do with me. You just don't want to talk about those things. It would be so incredibly easy for you to prove me wrong, yet all you do is put out sad excuses for why you won't even try. Imagine how glorious it would be if you attempted to have that discussion and I then turned it into something else. Rather than pretending like I don't want that discussion, you could prove it. But you won't even try because you don't want to talk about it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hypocrisy much?
Just to clarify, since you continue to want to play idiotic games: If I were revealing something private, you may have a point. I did not. Your comments under this alias are nearly identical to your comments under a previous alias and also (much more commonly) to your comments as an AC. I did not reveal anything that YOU DID NOT REVEAL PUBLICLY. The "connection" is the same one that plenty of other commenters noted. I did not look to see if the comments are coming from the same email address or IP address. It's simply obvious. Hell, for all I know you COULD be a mimic. My "confirmation" is based on nothing but public information -- public information you revealed.
Only *you* go off on your stupid lies claiming I have to "debate you." There was a whole meme on here for a while "why won't you debate meeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee" based on your childish behavior. It's obvious who you are.
Revealing info that you yourself are making public is not violating anyone's private information. Apparently you didn't take your time away from the site to actually mature, huh?
Again, it's these childish games which shows why you are not worth debating with.
I will not check this thread again. I have actual work to do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hypocrisy much?
Only *you* go off on your stupid lies claiming I have to "debate you." There was a whole meme on here for a while "why won't you debate meeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee" based on your childish behavior. It's obvious who you are.
Revealing info that you yourself are making public is not violating anyone's private information. Apparently you didn't take your time away from the site to actually mature, huh?
Again, it's these childish games which shows why you are not worth debating with.
I will not check this thread again. I have actual work to do.
You explicitly did link "my current username to my old username," as I indicated. That you deny doing this is hilarious. And sad. Everyone can see that you did it. That you can't have a substantive discussion on the merits about anything that actually matters is sadder still. I don't bite. I promise. You really shouldn't be so scared of me. But, yeah, keep making excuses. I'm sure the dumber folks are buying it. All I want is for you to be explicit as to your personal beliefs about copyright. Let's get to the bottom of whether you're really anti-copyright and/or pro-piracy. But you don't want to have that conversation. Hmmm. I wonder why.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hypocrisy much?
Yes, he did. In exactly the same way, using exactly the same evidence as the rest of us already made that link quite a while ago. Your protesting on this point is just silly.
"That you can't have a substantive discussion on the merits about anything that actually matters is sadder still."
He can't have a substantive discussion with you for the same reason that nobody else can have a substantive discussion with you: you're apparently incapable of engaging in such discussions.
"All I want is for you to be explicit as to your personal beliefs about copyright. Let's get to the bottom of whether you're really anti-copyright and/or pro-piracy."
Oh, good lord, not this again. This statement is a prime example of why having a substantive discussion with you is impossible. This discussion has already been had, more than once, and Mike has explained his stance multiple times, sometimes in talking with you but more often (and more completely) in his articles.
The problem is that Mike's stance isn't as black-and-white as you want it to be -- you're wanting him to say "I am for/against copyright", when his actual stance is more nuanced than that. If you really want to know his stance, read what he wrote. He hasn't hid anything at all.
Your asking if he is pro-piracy -- a question he has answered unambiguously (he's against it) is also fascinating, and feeds into my strong suspicious that all you are really trying to do is maneuver him into a rhetorical trap.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hypocrisy much?
The problem is that Mike's stance isn't as black-and-white as you want it to be -- you're wanting him to say "I am for/against copyright", when his actual stance is more nuanced than that. If you really want to know his stance, read what he wrote. He hasn't hid anything at all.
Your asking if he is pro-piracy -- a question he has answered unambiguously (he's against it) is also fascinating, and feeds into my strong suspicious that all you are really trying to do is maneuver him into a rhetorical trap.
I'm sure he thinks it's a trap. He's only answered at a very general level, and he won't get into the specifics. I've been trying for four years to have this conversation with him. You see how much he freaks out when it comes up. He'd rather have any other conversation in the world. I think the reason is obvious: He doesn't want to admit the specifics about what he believes. I've waited four years. I can wait many, many more. Funny how this thread got turned into this conversation. I really only wanted to point out that he's doing the same thing to Tor users as the folks at Tor have identified as a new problem. And of course Mike can't simply admit that either. The man does not take criticism well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hypocrisy much?
I've seen your version of "debate me". It's essentially, "Here is my question to you mike. [inserts question here] Now, you can answer it. Just keep in mind your answer has to be either [inserts Answer Choice 1 here] or [inserts Answer Choice 2 here]. Those are your only possible choices. Anything else is just 'weasel words' and a sign that you refuse to answer my question honestly or debate me."
I stopped visiting this site for over a year or two.
I hadn't seen you again until the other day, the moment I read your comments I knew right away who you were. Mike doesn't out you, you out yourself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hypocrisy much?
I've seen your version of "debate me". It's essentially, "Here is my question to you mike. [inserts question here] Now, you can answer it. Just keep in mind your answer has to be either [inserts Answer Choice 1 here] or [inserts Answer Choice 2 here]. Those are your only possible choices. Anything else is just 'weasel words' and a sign that you refuse to answer my question honestly or debate me."
Here's a simple question that he won't answer: Mike, do you believe that authors should have any exclusive rights to their writings? He won't answer that question. I'm not trying to get him to answer on my own terms. I just want a straightforward answer to a simple question. He can answer it anyway he wants. I'd be happy so long as when he's done, we all know the answer. But he will not answer that question in any way. Ask him yourself. It doesn't matter who's asking. He won't discuss it. He pretends like he won't answer it because it's me asking. That's him dodging a question he doesn't want to answer. This isn't hard.
Mike doesn't out you, you out yourself.
I may have implicitly "outed" myself. But the fact remains that Mike explicitly "outed" me. It's hilarious how you guys spin this. Mike absolutely and explicitly connected my old account to my new account. Pretending like he didn't is dumb. And of course, he only does this sort of thing with critics. It's sad. Good grief.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hypocrisy much?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hypocrisy much?
If he's answered it so many times, what's the answer to my question? All I see is Mike stomping his feet and making more excuses. And let me ask you this: Do you agree with me that Mike treats Tor users differently, thus making TD part of the very same problem the folks at Tor are identifying? If not, why not? Let's have some substance.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hypocrisy much?
...and there's your problem. Mike has answered every single one of your questions. You just refuse to see that he's answered them.
Seriously, you and I used to have some pretty involved debates, where I learned a lot (by reading the source material, and realizing that you're wrong, but still...). I was incredibly disappointed when I realized that you were the idiotic "moo, quack" dope who obviously was nothing more than a reactionary troll.
Incidentally, I'm pretty sure I know who you are in real life. I know this not because of IP addresses or anything like that, but because of information that you voluntarily revealed here in your comments, and because your legal arguments are so completely off the wall that only you could make them.
I won't reveal who I think you are, unless you tell me to guess. But trust me - your loony tunes style is unmistakable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hypocrisy much?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hypocrisy much?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hypocrisy much?
That's quite obvious from your choice of user names.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hypocrisy much?
You'd have a better argument over my avatar, since "antidirt" could just reflect my desire for cleanliness. Regardless, I did in fact donate to the site because I value it. I've been an avid reader for several years, so I'm happy to help out. I no longer read anything by "the Tims" or Leigh, but I do value Mike's posts--even though I often disagree with his take. I wish this site was more open to opposing views. Sometimes there's good discussions in the comments, but not as often as there would be if Mike set a better example, IMO.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hypocrisy much?
And you wonder why everyone except for the copyright cocksuckers treat you like a kid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hypocrisy much?
You don't need your anonymity; you regularly shit on it by posting the same things over and over again.
How did I move the goalposts? Tor identified a problem where sites treat Tor users differently. Mike admits that he treats Tor users differently by using captcha and routing some posts through Tor to the spam filter. This makes it so that Tor users have trouble participating on Techdirt. I'm sure Mike has legitimate reasons for doing this, but it's also clear that he can't simply admit that he's part of the very same problem Tor has identified. As per usual, he takes no responsibility for his own actions. He's part of the problem.
And Mike has again proved here that he doesn't respect my anonymity. Rather than own up to being a part of the problem Tor identified, he made sure that everyone knew my old login so that he could attack me personally. If he truly respected anonymity, he wouldn't have done that. When it comes to his critics, he doesn't respect anonymity. He's only proved that again in the very comment where he denies it. I'm not hiding the fact that I changed usernames. But that doesn't mean it's right for Mike to say it explicitly. He just had to get those personal digs in, so my anonymity didn't matter any more. He had to post that link (the one he never wants to address directly) to discredit me because that's sadly all he can do.
He knows for a fact all of things that happened last summer. It was a ridiculous game where, for example, posts that contained certain words were routed to the spam filter because I would use those certain words. He was so desperate to keep me from criticizing him. It was hilarious. And of course he can't admit to any of it. I wouldn't want to admit to it either. The lengths he went to to silence my criticism of him were incredible, yet he pretends like he doesn't know what I'm talking about so he can save face with you guys. I love it. It makes me smile. But the one thing he can't do is ever just have an honest discussion on the merits where he doesn't dodge the tough questions. I suspect he never will. But I didn't intend for this thread to turn into that conversation. I just wanted Mike to admit that he's part of the problem that Tor identifies. Of course, Mike can't just admit that. He could unblock my home IP so my posts don't go to the spam filter today if he wanted to, but he doesn't want to. He likes that his critics have trouble criticizing him. If he could stop me from posting completely, I believe he would in a second. But he knows it's futile.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hypocrisy much?
You're like a dog that shits over everything, playing a funny little game by yourself. If people get annoyed and clean up your shit, you win. If people don't clean up after you, you win. That behavior doesn't get you taken seriously; it gets you filtered just like any decent human would do with something undesirable and anti-social. There's no dealing with you, because you don't want to be dealt with in anything other than what you consider to be a victory, tantamount to little more than a playground bully screaming "Neener neener neener."
That you think this is an achievement is just pathetic, and the fact that you keep coming back for more, spamming through multiple computers and IP addresses - like what your side claims only pirates would do - makes it worse.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hypocrisy much?
You're like a dog that shits over everything, playing a funny little game by yourself. If people get annoyed and clean up your shit, you win. If people don't clean up after you, you win. That behavior doesn't get you taken seriously; it gets you filtered just like any decent human would do with something undesirable and anti-social. There's no dealing with you, because you don't want to be dealt with in anything other than what you consider to be a victory, tantamount to little more than a playground bully screaming "Neener neener neener."
That you think this is an achievement is just pathetic, and the fact that you keep coming back for more, spamming through multiple computers and IP addresses - like what your side claims only pirates would do - makes it worse.
How is it spamming? I think it's hypocritical of Mike to publish an article by Glyn about a new problem identified by Tor when Mike himself is part of that same problem. He wants to be seen as a friend to Tor, but his own actions show that he's part of a problem Tor is facing. He won't own up to it. That's not spam. That's criticism. I know criticism isn't welcome here, as you yourself are making clear. But there it is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hypocrisy much?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hypocrisy much?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Hypocrisy much?
By the way, I'm not the one posting that. Though, I do think it's funny and it makes a good point. Mike absolutely hates it when copyright law is enforced, yet nothing makes him more scared than having an honest discussion on the merits about his personal views of copyright. He wants so desperately for people to think he's not anti-copyright or pro-piracy, yet he runs from any conversation trying to establish exactly what his position is. Everyone knows what he really thinks. Why can't he just say it explicitly?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hypocrisy much?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hypocrisy much?
I'm not a fan of the "trolls," but I do think they represent a problem. Rightholders are up against thousands if not millions of people violating their rights with no financially reasonable way to do anything about it. I think pointing out the occasional "granny" who gets a questionable notice is disingenuous. I know Techdirt loves to do that, but in my opinion it takes things out of perspective.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hypocrisy much?
I'm not a fan of the "trolls," but I do think they represent a problem. Rightholders are up against thousands if not millions of people violating their rights with no financially reasonable way to do anything about it. I think pointing out the occasional "granny" who gets a questionable notice is disingenuous. I know Techdirt loves to do that, but in my opinion it takes things out of perspective.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hypocrisy much?
Things get so out of perspective when there is collateral damage. Wouldn't it be nice if everyone simply overlooked the few people who get trampled and instead looked at the glorious justice that has prevailed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hypocrisy much?
Wow, and you wonder why no one takes you seriously.
By the way, according to your usual talking points (your in the plural sense of you dickheads with a hard-on for copyright), TOR users are filthy pirates. Hello, filthy pirate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hypocrisy much?
Wow, and you wonder why no one takes you seriously.
By the way, according to your usual talking points (your in the plural sense of you dickheads with a hard-on for copyright), TOR users are filthy pirates. Hello, filthy pirate.
Yes, it's funny because it's true. Mike does hate it, and he hates anyone asking him why he hates it even more. In my experience, Mike can't stand criticism, and he doesn't really value anonymity nearly as much as he claims. Hence his desire to treat Tor differently, while his blog pretends to value Tor.
I'm actually a Tor supporter. I used to run an exit node. I got in trouble with my ISP, so I moved my node offshore. I haven't been into it in a long while though. I paid my Tor dues. That's why I think it sucks that Mike treat Tor users in this way. You'd think he'd be leading the way with Tor, but that's not how Mike rolls. And of course his fanboys can't even criticize him over it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hypocrisy much?
For all the ranting you pinheads make about Tor usage to hide your tracks, you seem intent on masking yourselves to make sniping comments and giggle like giddy schoolyard bullies. How mature of you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Hypocrisy much?
For the record: my posts are being "held for moderation" as well. And I have no inkling whatsoever that Mike, or anyone else on Techdirt, bears the slightest grudge against me.
Sometimes this stuff just happens. Deal with it.
It's not like Techdirt has any obligation to provide you with a forum for your stupid rants. And Techdirt is much, much better than most sites, which nowadays require you to link to Facebook or something. And he's not even remotely as bad as Trichordist - where Lowery not only blocked my emails and deleted my comments, but hunted down my school email address, and implied that I would get sued.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hypocrisy much?
Screen shot: http://picthost.net/image.php?di=PG86
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Blocked for using TOR
Screenshot of Techdirt blocking TOR users: http://oi62.tinypic.com/a1thy9.jpg
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Blocked for using TOR
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Blocked for using TOR
Screenshot of Techdirt blocking TOR users: http://oi62.tinypic.com/a1thy9.jpg
Yep, Mike "I love Tor and Anonymity" Masnick makes it hard for users of Tor to be a part of Techdirt. Just don't ask him about it. What hypocrisy? LOL! This guy's unreal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
dont be fucking retards
This is the last fucking time i will say this....you retards out there go on be all you can be....remember those anon guys used tor and lolsec and they all got caught
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: dont be fucking retards
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: dont be fucking retards
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: dont be fucking retards
Tor simply masks IP addresses over secure connections. That's all it does.
The reason governments hate it comes down to its three hop system, making tracking difficult, but not impossible.
Other tools are required to remain completely anonymous, such as flashing Linux USB drives, modifying browser add-ons to hide a uniqueness, never using a username that can be tracked to you, and software such as TAILS.
Even all these doesn't guarantee being anonymous because most users do the worst thing they can do: use their home connection.
TOR, in it's simplest form, is one of the best tools one can use to mask IP addresses.
The unfortunate part is companies are purposely blocking IP addresses not registered with ISPs they're familiar with. CAPTCHA being the worst. This isn't just a minor inconvenience as most sites are doing it.
This is the problem TOR is trying to resolve, and make no mistake, it IS A PROBLEM because several VPN users are also starting to see this block as well.
I don't know about anyone else, but it makes me uncomfortable as hell a company like Google or Cloudflare are using these techniques to block IP addresses they don't like or can't recognize.
That's fucking scary indeed. It wasn't like this a few years ago. So what in the hell changed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: dont be fucking retards
Three letter agencies gaining more and more control over corporate computer systems.
/conspiracy theory
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: dont be fucking retards
You sound convinced, is this based upon fact or supposition?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: dont be fucking retards
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Then there's javascript exploits, iframes, cross-site-scripting and all kinds of other exploits just waiting to bypass Tor. So yes, how you use Tor has a lot to do with your own security.
I personally use Tor to exercise my first amendment right, without fear of ending up a like a Facebook user who's foolish enough to attempt the same thing. I feel bad for UK citizens. I've been reading about them getting arrested left and right for daring to speak their minds on the internet.
I recently read a story about a mob descending on a household and killing the entire family for posting blasphemous material on Facebook.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/07/28/us-pakistan-islam-murder-idUSKBN0FX0GF20140728
It' s tragic Tor wasn't there to save these people's lives.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Seriously though, Tor saving them is a band aid on a gaping wound, that of intolerant societies. You aren't going to fix that with a few anonymous facebook posts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
it's why countries like Iran have essentially a closed internet within their country with very limited outlets. Yes, some people get past it but they are pretty determined to keep the lid on things. Getting caught connecting via proxy to get outside of the country has been dealt with in a very harsh way in the past.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
You mean like the US of A ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I didn't say Tor rights all wrongs. I said it saves lives.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Always been this way, the tools used have improved.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sidestepping
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Sidestepping
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Sidestepping
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Sidestepping
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Sidestepping
A clever man once said: “We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.”
Einstein was his name. Maybe take some inspiration from that...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sidestepping
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Techdirt usually gives me a captcha too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tor + stolen user data
When I left, a growing problem was Tor traffic that was also (apparently) using a crappy anonymizer add-on to fill in form data. We would regularly see 5 or 10 thousand distinct users registering with identical fake/stolen data. Sometimes the name would be common or made up, and the address would match a postal drop, like a MailBox Etc. store, but sometimes, rarely, it would be a real person's name and address and phone number. Either way, it was always a California address.
Also, the choice of names would switch every day at what was 2am Beijing time, with a transition overlap that suggested a browser addon that periodically polled a central server for the credentials. We had other several other reasons to believe this was primarily traffic from China. Also, page view timing strongly supported the idea that form auto fill was being used.
It was a problem for us in part because they were a disproportionate percent of "buyers" of the "product". About 75% of this traffic "bought", versus about a quarter of a percent from US/UK/CAN source IPs, but our partners usually ended up demanding refunds on these Tor "leads".
God, I'm so glad I no longer work there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Hypocrisy much?
I don't consider cloudflare 'over enthusiastic'. I use cloudflare. It saves resources which I would otherwise have to spend when running my site. The message shown is consistent with Techdirt's system submitting the IP to cloudflare and having cloudflare block it. It's not Cloudflare's decision and so has nothing to do with their enthusiasm or lack thereof.
Also, there's no reason to believe techdirt's local system was over enthusiastic. You have no idea why the IP that was blocked at cloudflare got blocked. The IP blocked at Cloudflare may have been detected doing something fairly obnoxious-- vulnerability scanning, rfi injection and so on. Hackers and script-kiddies using bots do use Tor for these sorts of things. Even if administrators all understand that IPs are not connected to individuals and that Tor IPs are quickly cycled among users, local rules temporarily blocking IPs after detecting these sorts of behaviors are purdent. Those using Tor may then make a decision to fill out a captcha or not. They can return later. Or they refresh their IP and find one that is not blocked. Or they can post their comments in some other venue where people can read them. These things may be inconvenient; the tor user may prefer other options. But that small inconvenience hardly limits free speech and claiming it is only makes those complaining sound like whiners.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hypocrisy much?
"anon, Sep 6th, 2014 @ 10:17pm
Re: Re: Re: Re: Hypocrisy much?"
Was posted using Tor. I was not presented a Captcha. There seems to have been a delay before it appeared, but I was able to post.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
hypocrisy
hy·poc·ri·sy
The behavior of people who do things that they tell other people not to do.
Bhavior that does not agree with what someone claims to believe or feel
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hypocrisy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: hypocrisy
hy·poc·ri·sy
The behavior of people who do things that they tell other people not to do.
Bhavior that does not agree with what someone claims to believe or feel
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hypocrisy
Are you serious? Mike pretends like he thinks it's important to protect anonymity online in many of his posts.
For example:
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070118/160351.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/201 40130/16415926056/importance-anonymity-wonders-youtubes-saddest-comments.shtml
https://www.techdirt.c om/articles/20060220/1132247.shtml
Why does Mike hate Tor? Why does Mike hate free speech? Why does Mike hate dissenting views?
This isn't hard. He talks the talk, but he doesn't walk the walk.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: hypocrisy
1) Is it even possible to be anon online?
2) If you think so, you might want to look again.
3) If not, what do you mean when referring to the condition?
4) Is it a matter of degrees?
5) What exactly is non-anon?
If you are going to toss out accusations, perhaps others would be interested in why.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: hypocrisy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: hypocrisy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: hypocrisy
On the one hand:
I think pointing out the occasional "granny" who gets a questionable notice is disingenuous.
Yet on the other:
God forbid he actually do his homework before posting.
So post an article without being 100% right(impossible unless you're talking about pure math, given differing views on things and events)? Terrible, and mock-worthy.
Send a legal shake-down letter to someone based upon flimsy, faulty evidence? No problem, and it's disingenuous to point them out, after all, it's 'just an accident'.
Good to know which you consider more important between a legal threat, and an article on a blog.
You get your account deleted with no admission or explanation. I've never seen anyone like him.
And yet, here you are, still posting, still whining about how hypocritical Mike is for having an anti-spam system that requires a simple CAPTHCA to bypass for those that use TOR to post.
Or put in simpler terms: [CITATION NEEDED]. If you've got proof, provide it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: hypocrisy
No, it's disingenuous to use exceptional cases to paint an entire process as a problem. For every "granny" getting a notice, how many decent and valid ones went out? Your heart surgeon would love to have that sort of success rate.
It's a common problem. Many of the discussions of copyright and patent here are based on taken exceptional, egregious cases and using them to try to define the entire system. There have been more than 7 million patents, a few hundred have been used by patent trolls, so clearly the patent system is broken! There are untold thousands (if not millions) of copyright images, works, and recordings created every day, but every time there is a single case of copyright used in any other than a perfect way, we are told that the copyright system is obviously defective and must be removed.
Or put in simpler terms: [CITATION NEEDED]. If you've got proof, provide it.
Techdirt has an automated system that filters posts by IP, browser, cookie, and a few other things... and will automatically put posts from that person / computer / IP into moderation rather than adding them directly. It's a known fact and a given. If you post from an IP from Russia, China, or a number of other places, you are pretty much doomed to be "moderated" to death.
Techdirt uses Cloudflare. Cloudflare is a very good system, but their default settings include CAPTCHA and others methods for users from common IPs to have to whitelist themselves to get access to sites, and that generally resets every 15 minutes. If you are using TOR and changing exit nodes regularly (as you should), you will almost certainly hit a captcha on every page load. Cloudflare's system does not play well with open relays (which Tor appears to be for all intents and purposes).
The nature of Tor (changing exit nodes) and Cloudflare together mean that posts may not make it to Techdirt at all, and may not be processed. Those who are processed may get caught in the Techdirt filters.
No citation is possible, except to say go turn on Tor and try it. I know, it's hard for a non-technical person, but I suspect you can hack it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: hypocrisy
Strawman argument. Pointing out 'exceptional'(but common) cases of the system being abused isn't painting the 'entire process' as a problem, it's showing where it fails. If you would like to link to where Mike or one of the other TD writers have stated that the entire DMCA process is a failure, be my guest.
'The first step to fixing a problem is knowing it's there', you know, that saying?
Pointing out that there is absolutely zero penalty for filing a clearly bogus DMCA claim? That's showing a problem.
Pointing out that the DMCA can, and is used to censor sites/comments/critics/anyone you don't care for? That's showing a problem.
In fact, here, have some reading regarding that one:
https://www.techdirt.com/search-g.php?q=copyright+as+censorship
There are untold thousands (if not millions) of copyright images, works, and recordings created every day, but every time there is a single case of copyright used in any other than a perfect way, we are told that the copyright system is obviously defective and must be removed.
And again, strawman argument. Either provide citations as to where Mike and the other TD writers are claiming that 'the copyright system is obviously defective and must be removed', rather than just pointing out it's problems and where the system is broken or defective, or admit you're putting words in their mouths.
Techdirt has an automated system that filters posts by IP, browser, cookie, and a few other things... and will automatically put posts from that person / computer / IP into moderation rather than adding them directly. It's a known fact and a given.
Indeed, and I don't believe anyone is claiming they don't have that system, but the issue is that antidirt, you, and several others see malicious intent to silence your contrary opinions(opinions that still get posted, but lets just ignore that little detail shall we?), whereas others, myself included, see a spam filter.
Tor is used by spammers and bots. Rather than block every single comment that comes from a Tor connection, as they could, TD instead provides a simple CAPTCHA system so that the comment can be verified to be coming from a human being, rather than a bot. It's really that simple.
Now, can it sometimes take a while for a comment to make it through moderation? Yes. But unless you're willing to offer your time wading through every single comment that gets caught in moderation, weeding out the actual comments from the spam, complaining that it sometimes takes a bit for those at TD to get to it is petty at best. They've got other things on their plates as well you know.
No citation is possible, except to say go turn on Tor and try it. I know, it's hard for a non-technical person, but I suspect you can hack it.
That comment, coming from someone who can't tell the difference between a spam filter and a nefarious plot to block out contrary comments(something dis-proven by the simple fact that you're still posting)... yeah, I really don't think it's your place to be making condescending comments regarding technical anything.
However, as a matter of fact I did try just that, in order to test an above question as to whether or not java is required to post here via Tor. My test comment was sent to moderation.
Did I automatically assume it was a sinister plot by the people at TD to silence my test-post? Not being paranoid and/or believing that those at TD are out to get me, I did not. Instead, I assumed it was a combination between the post itself being extremely short('Easy enough to test'), which has gotten comments of mine when signed in sent to moderation, and being posted via Tor.
If you'd care to look at what's actually happening, rather than just assuming, you might not jump at so many shadows and imaginary plots against you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: hypocrisy
That comment, coming from someone who can't tell the difference between a spam filter and a nefarious plot to block out contrary comments(something dis-proven by the simple fact that you're still posting)... yeah, I really don't think it's your place to be making condescending comments regarding technical anything.
Tell you what. I will register 50 Techdirt accounts, crank up Tor, and every time you post I will "report" you into the weeds, because I disagree with you. Would that be censorship? Or would that just be a spam filter at work?
If you'd care to look at what's actually happening, rather than just assuming, you might not jump at so many shadows and imaginary plots against you.
Congradulations for regurgitating the party line verbatim. The Techdirt staff will give you a gold star. I hope one day you learn to think for yourself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: hypocrisy
Another reason why not to take you seriously.
Remember that by using Tor, you're a filthy pirate, as claimed by all the copyright supporters that make the system work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: hypocrisy
Tell you what. I will register 50 Techdirt accounts, crank up Tor, and every time you post I will "report" you into the weeds, because I disagree with you. Would that be censorship? Or would that just be a spam filter at work?
Neither, that would be a child pretending to be an adult throwing a tantrum and lashing out against anyone who dares make then angry/annoyed.
Congradulations for regurgitating the party line verbatim. The Techdirt staff will give you a gold star. I hope one day you learn to think for yourself.
So holding an opinion on something contrary to yours is an indication that someone can't think for them-self. That an interesting standard you've got there(I might also go with 'egotistical', 'laughable', and 'wrong').
Here's a little tidbit you may not be aware of: People other than you can hold valid opinions, opinions that while contrary to yours, can still be correct. You don't have the monopoly on truth or knowledge.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: hypocrisy
As far as we know only two of such cases occur. Scared people unwilling to risk lawsuits and coughing up several thousand dollars because wealthy labels threatened them with financial ruin doesn't count as "decent and valid". It just proves people will do anything to get out of the way of a loaded gun.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: hypocrisy
The collateral damage is ok in your opinion, I doubt granny is in agreement. Your flippant disregard for basic human dignity is duly noted.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We should ban cameras
How is child porn made? With a camera.
Remember the video by ISIS where the terrorists were beheading a journalist? Made with a camera.
Like people are saying, just because there are good uses for the technology, it should be banned if bad people use it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: We should ban cameras
Not always. In the US, even drawings of children in sexual situations is forbidden as child porn. So we have to add pens, pencils, crayons, paper, etc. to the list.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I will also point out something many people might not know. Mike, in his usual deceitful manner, has also made it so that if a comment is reported and blocked, that the original poster will never know because the comment still shows up when they view the site. It remains the same if you log out or even use another browser, which suggests that it's not just user based but also IP based.
So if you thought the report button was in part there to "educate" offenders, forget it. Mike would rather that those who offend talk themselves rather than actually address the issues.
There are plenty of things about Techdirt that have nothing to do with encouraging the free speech that he rails for every day. Free speech is great, as long as it's not actually on Techdirt.
G'nite from here. Now you know more abouttechdirt that you wanted to. Did your opinion change?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You and average_joe seriously need to get a room and talk about all your little mancrushes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Your first amendment right to free speech has to do with limitations upon government action(s), it says nothing about freedom from the speech of others who may be in disagreement.
Happy trails to you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
This is a lie.
I post comments to this site rarely. But, in an article a while back, in a moment of anger at AJ (the very troll puking in the comments right now), I posted a very questionable comment in response to one his comments. That post of mine was reported by the community, as it should have been, and eventually it was collapsed like so many of yours and AJs are prone to being. And, most importantly, I knew that it had been reported because I saw the results of it and it let me know that I'd commented in a way that was not appreciated by the community that I have respect for.
Whatever, you and AJ (antidirt or whatever he wants to call himself this time around) have your comments reported by the community not because you disagree with Techdirt or other commenters here. No, your posts are reported because you frequently or exclusively (in the case of AJ) engage in trollish behavior.
I don't even read AJs rantings, or respond to him in any way, because, if you lay down one of his posts from this article and compare to any of his comments on any previous article to date, they are simply nothing but whiny, deceitful, abusive and trollish comments. I instantly hit the report button on any comment he makes and feel no regret or guilt in doing so. Nor will I start in the future feeling regret or guilt in doing so. AJ has lost my respect and will not get it back short of issuing an unconditional apology to every member of this community, in writing.
Your comments are frequently whiny, deceitful, abusive and trollish as well. But, unlike AJ, I don't automatically report your posts. You have not yet reached the level of AJ trollishness and you can sometimes actually disagree and articulate that disagreement in a way that does not rise to the level of trollishness. But, in the day that I cannot get through the comments of an article where all your comments are totally off the rails, you'll start getting default reported by me.
Other folks here in the comments may be willing to tolerate and engage with the two of you. I, on the other hand, have no patience for either of you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
antidirt pointed to a comment of mine earlier in this thread as having been "reported" to death. Yet for me, that comment was completely visible, with no indication of it being reported. As far as I could see reading the thread, the comment was still live and still visible, even when viewed with a different browser and on a different device.
I, on the other hand, have no patience for either of you.
Not to worry, I won't miss ya. Seriously, if hearing the other side of the story, hearing the devils advocate view, or hearing something you just don't want to deal with is going to get you upset, then yeah, you need to skip my posts. I agree with Mike sometimes, but I often find that he sees things a certain way and has a sort of willful blindness to reality. Some of his "staff writers" try even harder, so you can imagine how that reads.
It's all in how you view things. You can except what is shoveled at you, or you can question it. I'm not eating what's on the shovel.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
It's clear that you two still won't learn that shit-flinging does not constitute criticism; it's shit-flinging.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Who thought that? I thought it was just to make the comment section easier to read for everyone else, while still allowing people to read all the comments if they wish to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]