Cable's Top Lobbyist Just Can't Understand Why People Like Google Better
from the King-Kong-was-misunderstood dept
Trying to justify the cable industry's latest lawsuit over net neutrality, former FCC boss turned top cable lobbyist Michael Powell has offered up an incredibly entertaining interview in which he struggles to understand why Google tends to see higher customer satisfaction ratings than the cable industry, and tries to brush away anti-competitive concerns as the ramblings of the uninformed masses who just don't understand what a sweetheart the cable industry truly is. In fact, Powell claims the entire net neutrality debate is an unfair persecution of an innocent cable industry and the wholesale hallucination of a few rabblerousers :"There's probably a book we could write on this. A huge element that led to this decision was a well-orchestrated, dynamic movement, launched, housed and managed on the Internet, that created a myth that something was happening that wasn't actually happening. You can go look at all the materials from Free Press and others who said the cable industry is in the middle of setting up tolls on the Internet. But there is no justification that we were ever doing any of things we were alleged. In Mark Cuban's words, this is nothing but big-company bashing--the idea that cable is full of these evil corporate entities who are thinking of ways to screw you over."One, if you're using Mark Cuban as an example of someone with a solid grasp on what the net neutrality debate is about, you're doing it wrong. Two, dismissing the entire net neutrality movement as the incoherent ramblings of Free Press is dismissive and obnoxious given the millions of individuals and companies that have made their position on the issue very clear. Three, the cable industry absolutely was engaged in bad behavior, ranging from throttling all upstream BitTorrent traffic (and lying about it repeatedly) to imposing usage caps to hinder internet video (and lying about the fact it was necessary to battle the network congestion bogeyman). That's before you even touch on the obnoxious behavior of the wireless industry, and its endless efforts to block competing technologies, apps and services.
It's clear while reading the interview that Powell has an absolutely devastating case of Google envy, caused in large part by Google's disruptive efforts related to Google Fiber. In trying to explain away Google's higher customer satisfaction ratings, Powell tries to argue that this is because the cable industry has to actually bill you and occasionally come to your house to drill holes:
"We come into your house and do the difficult work of running wires and drilling holes. And unlike Google, we have to send you a bill--a bill to pay for the broadband infrastructure that Google and others profit handsomely from, but don't support directly. Yes, they have ways they support the network, too, but they don't have to directly bill their customer for tripling and quadrupling speeds. A lot of those fantastic companies that don't have to bill you may be selling your identity up, down and sideways, which we may come to regret. But Google has an 80 percent approval rating."Ignored in Powell's statement is the fact that the cable industry does an incredibly shitty job at billing and home installs. In fact, NCTA members Comcast and Time Warner Cable not only have the worst customer satisfaction ratings in telecom, but in any American industry. Only the cable industry finds itself in the news constantly for employees that fall asleep at customer homes, murder people, dig up the wrong yard, torture kittens, or blow up laptops, dishwashers or entire homes. Meanwhile, Powell forgets Google is now doing installs and billing under Google Fiber -- and the search engine company is doing a notably better job of it than the cable industry has despite a several-decade head start. That's just embarrassing, however Powell would like to paint it.
From there, Powell works hard to claim that it's Facebook and Google that are the diabolical "gatekeepers," and that the cable industry is just the little guy trying to make ends meet:
"Many of these tech companies are dramatically bigger than us. Comcast and Time Warner Cable pale in size when compared to Google, Facebook and Amazon. These are not multinationals. They're domestic American companies. In fact, there not even national companies--Comcast doesn't serve every customer in the United States ... We're called 'the gatekeepers' when companies that control 90 percent of the search market are not. I think this is misguided in ways that don't lead to constructive outcomes, but rather bad policy outcomes like net neutrality."Well for one, someone forgot to give Powell the memo that Google and Facebook were notably absent from the last round of net neutrality support. Meanwhile, the fact that Google and Facebook have massive international footprints and a spotty history on privacy doesn't magically explain away why the cable industry is notably more disliked than either company. Three, Powell ignores the fact that people have the choice to use Google or Facebook. The lack of competition in broadband means that consumers are stuck with their cable provider, whether they like it or not.
Look, the reason the cable industry is so hated isn't rocket science. It's because the industry has consistently cut corners on customer service to improve quarter-over-quarter earnings, resulting in most consumers having a miserable experience every time they interact with their cable company. Meanwhile, the one-two punch of napping regulators and the lack of serious broadband competition ensures this orchestra of apathy and dysfunction never really changes. That's not really complicated. If Powell and the cable industry really care about being well-liked, they simply have to pony up the cash to provide better customer service. Of course they'd much rather put that money in the bank, then whine like a giant, wealthy baby about how nobody likes them as much as 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: broadband, cable, michael powell
Companies: comcast, google, ncta
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What? Google Fiber customers don't get bills? Google don't pay their bandwidth bills? Google haven't installed any new infrastructure? Did someone let them know, I could have sworn I saw some overheads claimed on their finances, they'll be happy to know they didn't actually pay them.
Yet again, everything seems logical if you just transport yourself into a fantasy universe where the realities of other people just evaporate.
"We're called 'the gatekeepers' when companies that control 90 percent of the search market are not"
...and how do people access those search engines? You are aware that you don't have to use a search engine to use the internet, but you absolutely do have to have an ISP. Right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The distinction is simple.
You are a gatekeeper when you control what content and services are available to your customers via cable, and lever your position to extend this control to the Internet.
You are not a gatekeeper when you Index the Internet to let people find the information and content they want, and run publishing platforms that anybody can use with a minimum of oversight and control.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
All I see is Powell calmly comparing, and this Techdirt minion EXAGGERATING.
Does Techdirt have a bias to protecting Google from even oblique comparison? EVIDENTLY.
Google directly funds Masnick.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: All I see is Powell calmly comparing, and this Techdirt minion EXAGGERATING.
Anyway how can anyone actually defend what Powell was saying... Get off this Train of Defamation and just re-read what was stated by Powell. It's ABSURD!... Cable companies have been a Monopoly my whole life...Heck I remember when the reason we got cable was to avoid Commercials, and there weren't any.... Anyway I see this article as being obvious but nice to see.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
All I see is Powell calmly comparing, and this Techdirt minion EXAGGERATING.
Does Techdirt have a bias to protecting Google from even oblique comparison? EVIDENTLY.
Google directly funds Masnick.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: All I see is Powell calmly comparing, and this Techdirt minion EXAGGERATING.
Hey, at least this time, the article has something tangential to do with Google, so there's that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: All I see is Powell calmly comparing, and this Techdirt minion EXAGGERATING.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: All I see is Powell calmly comparing, and this Techdirt minion EXAGGERATING.
How much do you think Mike gets for every illegal download?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: All I see is Powell calmly comparing, and this Techdirt minion EXAGGERATING.
Now, where's your proof of your claims? Or, are you going to admit that you're a liar?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: All I see is Powell calmly comparing, and this Techdirt minion EXAGGERATING.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: All I see is Powell calmly comparing, and this Techdirt minion EXAGGERATING.
You’ve never heard of hyperbole, I suppose.
Thing is, for all your complaining about what Mr. Bode here has written, you don’t seem eager to point out any flaws in his logic or holes in his data. You’d rather launch attacks with no foundation and use ad hominems to disguise your lack of argument.
If you felt confident enough to argue with or discredit Mr. Bode's writing, you would have done so. But you didn’t. So go back to the preschool playground where you belong and shut the fuck up when grown folks is talkin’.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: All I see is Powell calmly comparing, and this Techdirt minion EXAGGERATING.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: All I see is Powell calmly comparing, and this Techdirt minion EXAGGERATING.
Even if that were 100% true, the fact that Comcast and TWC are two of the worst hated companies is also true. Those reputations (reported by Forbes) are well earned. I have a lot of personal experience with Comcast bullpucky. From poorly trained telephone support people, to ignorant installer/field techs. I have had them tell me it would cost me hundreds for them to come fix their problems because they insisted they were my problems only to come back later and say they didn't need to rerun cables it was a modem provisioning problem. I have no choice for internet other than Comcast, satellite (not reasonable) dialup or perhaps carrier pidgeon so while the cable industry purports there is a choice, there, effectively, is not. Yet they pose that the gatekeepers are platforms for which there are many choices.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: All I see is Powell calmly comparing, and this Techdirt minion EXAGGERATING.
Prove it. Prove your claim. Show me ONE pay stub, check, email or picture of money exchanging hands between Google and Masnick. One. Go ahead. Oh wait, you're making stuff up? Not surprised.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: All I see is Powell calmly comparing, and this Techdirt minion EXAGGERATING.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: All I see is Powell calmly comparing, and this Techdirt minion EXAGGERATING.
Meanwhile court documents outed him as a bonafide Google shill.
Get a life, loser.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: All I see is Powell calmly comparing, and this Techdirt minion EXAGGERATING.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: All I see is Powell calmly comparing, and this Techdirt minion EXAGGERATING.
Good, then you won't have any problem providing some sort of evidence to support your accusation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: All I see is Powell calmly comparing, and this Techdirt minion EXAGGERATING.
Why not you first?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: All I see is Powell calmly comparing, and this Techdirt minion EXAGGERATING.
Hey AC, why don't you go first and provide evidence as to who's paying you and how much? I mean, if you're going to ask someone else to provide personal financial data, claim that their refusal to do so indicates that they're 'hiding' something, and then refuse to turn over your personal financial data... well, that would be telling wouldn't it, your own argument would seem to indicate that you've got plenty to hide at that point.
Meanwhile court documents outed him as a bonafide Google shill.
Oh by all means, please provide the citation for that one, because I'm almost dead certain I know what you're referring to, and it is not even remotely close to what you claim.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: All I see is Powell calmly comparing, and this Techdirt minion EXAGGERATING.
Do you realize what a futile attempt at logic you statement represents? This is fox logic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: All I see is Powell calmly comparing, and this Techdirt minion EXAGGERATING.
Do you realize what a futile attempt at sentence construction your statement represents?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: All I see is Powell calmly comparing, and this Techdirt minion EXAGGERATING.
Its a question, so the diagramming will be a little more difficult; esp for a fox drone like you.
Do you realize that your reply only furthers my original assertion? (this sentence is probablly tougher for you, but please try. the more you try, the better you will become at applying and recognizing proper logical constructs. After all, a mind is a terrible thing to waste. Even you weakend FOX mind can improve with practice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: All I see is Powell calmly comparing, and this Techdirt minion EXAGGERATING.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: All I see is Powell calmly comparing, and this Techdirt minion EXAGGERATING.
...in addition to your spell-checker.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: All I see is Powell calmly comparing, and this Techdirt minion EXAGGERATING.
Well, "furthering" it in your head is not the same as making it any more real for the rest of us.
But keep trying. I love trolling trolls. And as far as today goes, there's plenty to keep me entertained.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: All I see is Powell calmly comparing, and this Techdirt minion EXAGGERATING.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: All I see is Powell calmly comparing, and this Techdirt minion EXAGGERATING.
"Heavily bashing your masters" made me laugh, though.
Napoleon complex, or are you just fat?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: All I see is Powell calmly comparing, and this Techdirt minion EXAGGERATING.
Masnick has been asked numerous times to demonstrate how he's paid. He refuses. Because he has lots to hide
If so, I don't think 'the rest of us' align with your thinking.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: All I see is Powell calmly comparing, and this Techdirt minion EXAGGERATING.
"Rest of us" meaning you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: All I see is Powell calmly comparing, and this Techdirt minion EXAGGERATING.
p.s. thanks for you support. i love it when paid trolls like you boost the views of your opponents.
The conversation is over.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: All I see is Powell calmly comparing, and this Techdirt minion EXAGGERATING.
FTFY.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: All I see is Powell calmly comparing, and this Techdirt minion EXAGGERATING.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: All I see is Powell calmly comparing, and this Techdirt minion EXAGGERATING.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: All I see is Powell calmly comparing, and this Techdirt minion EXAGGERATING.
Care to point where the article was "EXAGGERATING"?
I've read through it and every statement seems to be backed up with supporting links, so where exactly is the "EXAGGERATING" part?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: All I see is Powell calmly comparing, and this Techdirt minion EXAGGERATING.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
in the immortal words of Rocket...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In the immortal words of his sidekick...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: In the immortal words of his sidekick...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Clearly Powell understands well.
Why Google Is the New Evil Empire
http://www.foxbusiness.com/technology/2015/04/20/why-google-is-new-evil-empire/
Techdirt fanboys and Google shills are already out in force! -- Accusing others of being shills. That's called projection, and it's the first resort of actual shills, at least the more clumsy low-level ones..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Clearly Powell understands well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Clearly Powell understands well.
How does a lack of the Google boogeyman change the fundamental flaws in Powell’s arguments?
If you can’t come up with a single credible argument not centered around “BUT…BUT GOOGLE”, you never had an argument and you never will.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Clearly Powell understands well.
Impossible, silly. It's mentioned in the title. Google is being defended, it's the central point here, determined by the one who re-wrote this.
But okay. Without looking at Google, it's a fine ad hom piece, fully up to Techdirt's usual: has the usual villains for the usual fanboys to rail at, and of course totally useless, nothing but railing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Have a DMCA vote.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Clearly Powell understands well.
...an opinion from some else? Sure, they've got plenty of those.
Let me guess - *that* blog repeats stuff *you* want to hear, so it must be truth? (Yes, it's an opinion piece so it's essentially a blog even if it has the name of one of your MPAA gods above the headline)
"Google shills are already out in force"
They are? Name them, they deserve to be outed. Oh, and provide proof, not assumptions dredged from your nether regions, OK?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Clearly Powell understands well.
That is all..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Clearly Powell understands well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Clearly Powell understands well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Clearly Powell understands well.
Now Comcast, I have had them lie to me multiple times, I have had problems with billing and it is always "I am sorry. That guaranteed pricing we sold you actually only last 6 months. You will just have to pay for it or lose it." It can take up to an hour to get a hold of someone. The only good things is that they replaced the line from their junction box to my home for free.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Clearly Powell understands well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Clearly Powell understands well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Clearly Powell understands well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Clearly Powell understands well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Clearly Powell understands well.
It's OK.
We understand now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm not even a Comcast customer...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is the way monopolists behave
One needs only look back to the early 20th century to consider the actions and statements of the monopolists then to see the commonalities we're experiencing today. Rockefeller, Carnegie, JP Morgan, Vanderbilt, et all. Each one of them also were indignant in the face of mounting (and wholly justified) public and government criticism of their behavior. Consumers were absolutely harmed by it. Some people actually died because of it.
I really believe we need a return to the monopoly and cartel busting of the 20th century. It's the only way to deal with abusive monopolies. Break them up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Google directly funds Masnick? Is that true or not?
If it's not true, why aren't you denying it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Google directly funds Masnick? Is that true or not?
Is this the best you have? You could at least be posting the proof of your assertions rather than ranting like lunatic. If this is the best you people have, you're convincing people to side with Google rather than the crazy homeless person in the corner...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Google directly funds Masnick? Is that true or not?
Otherwise, shut the fuck up, you're annoying the grown-ups.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Google directly funds Masnick? Is that true or not?
Umm, it's already online. -- Apparently no one does know of the "Copia Institute"!
http://techpresident.com/news/25483/first-post-shredding
"a for-profit think tank qua network that will focus on understanding the world through the lens of abundance rather than scarcity. The institute is being backed by the MacArthur Foundation, Union Square Ventures, Andreessen Horowitz, Foundry Group, Spark Capital. Google, Automattic (Wordpress), Yelp and Namecheap."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Google directly funds Masnick? Is that true or not?
When you can prove either of those two things, you might have an argument. But since you can’t (or you refuse to share your evidence), you don’t have any argument that holds water.
If you weren’t getting paid to disrupt the comments section of this site, I’d feel sorry for you. But hey, money’s money and even I’d think about compromising my principles for a job like yours.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Google directly funds Masnick? Is that true or not?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Google directly funds Masnick? Is that true or not?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Google directly funds Masnick? Is that true or not?
Yes, we're aware of it. One of you assholes tried making weak attacks on it yesterday. Strangely, you link to a random news site to show the information rather than link directly to https://copia.is/ where the sponsors are PUBLICLY displayed on the front page! I suppose it weakens the conspiracy bullshit if you're forced to note that Google's backing is displayed front and centre.
Now, here's the real questions and proof of which will make you a credible commenter if you can answer them with evidence:
- Where's the proof that this influences anything wither in the Copia Institute or on this site?
- Are you actually saying that everybody sponsored by Google is shilling for them? Since that's clearly ridiculous, what makes Mike different to the huge number of other initiatives Google sponsor?
- What about the other 8 sponsors on that website. Are they also paying Mike to shill for them? If not, what makes Google different?
Over to you - are you a paranoid moron or someone with actual evidence and proof of what you're saying?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Google directly funds Masnick? Is that true or not?
You're really not very good at this shill thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Google directly funds Masnick? Is that true or not?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_Picture_Association_of_AmericaComcast owns Universal and Time Warner owns Warner Bros, that proves that you are funded by Comcast and Time Warner cable. Q.E.D.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Google directly funds Masnick? Is that true or not?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Google directly funds Masnick? Is that true or not?
So what?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Google directly funds Masnick? Is that true or not?
For the same reason you are not denying you haven't stopped beating your wife
Dipshit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Google directly funds Masnick? Is that true or not?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Google directly funds Masnick? Is that true or not?
Careful with that. Nowadays, a request like that's practically facilitating an assassination, and I'm sure not going to help clean up the mess.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
>>> They are? Name them, they deserve to be outed. Oh, and provide proof, not assumptions dredged from your nether regions, OK?
PaulT. The evidence is that PaulT self-identified by making the first ad hom attack mentioning "shills" without least evidence -- and that same troll now demands proof from others.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I can't prove the "shill" accusation because you people never bother to identify yourselves enough to categorically differentiate between you (if there are indeed more than one). So, I'll retract that and stick with "mentally deranged obsessed idiot" instead. My evidence is visible for all to see in this thread.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "I can't prove the "shill" accusation" -- So, you were lying.
And we're supposed to credit you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: "I can't prove the "shill" accusation" -- So, you were lying.
So…yeah, good luck with that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: "I can't prove the "shill" accusation" -- So, you were lying.
Erm, you're the one launching ad hom attacks on the author of the article. If you don't like similar things thrown back at you, then open with actual discussion.
"And we're supposed to credit you?"
No more than anyone else making their honest opinions known here. But, that includes calling obsessed idiots who seem mentally deranged out on their behaviour. If you don't like being called out as one, stop acting lie one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: "I can't prove the "shill" accusation" -- So, you were lying.
2) You provide a 2nd source confirming that Google directly funds Masnick.
3) You should now be attacked by those still denying item #2.
4) You're now an admitted liar, making claims without least evidence. Whatever you state about your motives and not being a paid shill can't be believed.
Thanks for your help in proving it true that Google directly funds Masnick.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "I can't prove the "shill" accusation" -- So, you were lying.
If you really want to die upon this hill, you would do well to dig a better grave, because the one you’ve dug up to now looks pretty shallow.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "I can't prove the "shill" accusation" -- So, you were lying.
Childish fallback position demanding absolute proof of every last detail. It's clear you don't even want this simple fact stated:
Google directly funds Mike Masnick, "editor" of Techdirt.
People will make of that what they wish and then judge Masnick in light of it not being stated with every relevant article. That the bare fact was obviously NOT known by some, as shown above, is reason enough to state it. Again and again.
Why does anyone object to it being stated? -- Because you know that one bare fact undermines every item at Techdirt favorable to Google.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "I can't prove the "shill" accusation" -- So, you were lying.
The Copia thing is laughable. It doesn't even start to think about being evidence supporting your accusation.
"Why does anyone object to it being stated?"
Because it's a lie. Prove me wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "I can't prove the "shill" accusation" -- So, you were lying.
Google directly funds Mike Masnick, "editor" of Techdirt.
That is not a fact at all. All you know is that Google provided space for a Techdirt event many years ago, that the CCIA (Computer and Communications Industry Association, of which Google is a member) sponsored some research that Floor64 did and that Google is a current sponsor of the Copia Institute. Beyond that is pure speculation on your part.
In my opinion, you are bordering on libel with this unwarranted attack and you should be careful.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "I can't prove the "shill" accusation" -- So, you were lying.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
While that may be correct in the very narrow sense that he used the first ad hom mentioning shills, you definitely beat everyone else to the punch with your own gratuitous ad hom
Dipshit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
just like Hollywood and the rest of the entertainment industries!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Or completely inept.
"Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just one simple fact. But it's being blocked!
Childish fallback position demanding absolute proof of every last detail. It's clear you don't even want this simple fact stated:
Google directly funds Mike Masnick, "editor" of Techdirt.
People will make of that what they wish and then judge Masnick in light of it not being stated with every relevant article. That the bare fact was obviously NOT known by some, as shown above, is reason enough to state it. Again and again.
Why does anyone object to it being stated? -- Because you know that one bare fact undermines every item at Techdirt favorable to Google.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Just one simple fact. But it's being blocked!
You are not being blocked dumbass, so quit with the annoying double posts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Just one simple fact. But it's being blocked!
I'd hardly say that's some insignificant detail, since it seems to be central to your "argument."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sounds like the wealthy NHLPA players striking every 4 years for more money. Just ends up being a game of chumps.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cable Crooks
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
That's just sad, yo.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Who hated the process of due.
Each film that he'd paid
Was DMCAed,
And shoved up his ass with a screw.
But then came a troll named Slonecker,
A well-recognized Smart Alecker.
"You don't own the show
That you paid for, you know!"
The shout made blue come from his pecker.
And then came along antidirt,
Who sounded the trolling alert.
They made many messes
Through IP addresses
In order for their dicks to squirt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hiding that Google funds Masnick looks bad. Especially since PaulT confirmed it.
But whew. It's not libel to state the truth, kids. Google DOES fund Masnick.
Teh internets needs a term for trying to hide facts but only making them more obvious while helping to confirm them as true. Such an amazing reverse effect needs a name...
I suggest Masnickfied.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hiding that Google funds Masnick looks bad. Especially since PaulT confirmed it.
And before you try tone policing me and telling me that I resorted to foul language because I don’t have any arguments, please set yourself on fire.
You come into these comments sections and make near-defamatory statements about Mr. Masnick because...what, you got a grudge against him for mocking you? Someone paid you to discredit him? Whatever your reasons, you're doing a piss-poor job of ruining his credibility because you have none of your own.
The accusations of "Mike shills for Google" amount to nothing when you have no evidence to back it up. Hell, the article you're trying to rag on—which likely needed Mr. Masnick’s approval before publication—points out that Google stayed out of the last round of Net Neutrality support and has a spotty history concerning privacy. A "Google shill" would never so much as question anything Google does, much less point out its flaws.
You, on the other hand, have never once criticized Michael Powell. I haven’t seen you dare to question his logic or his claims, and that makes me wonder why you’d avoid doing so.
So here’s my challenge, you pencil-necked propagandist: Prove that Google has directly funded Mr. Masnick on a personal level or forced Mr. Masnick to write pro-Google entries on Techdirt (or elsewhere). Offer some actual evidence that backs up your claims.
If you can’t do that, please go shit up a YouTube comments section. You’d probably fit in well over there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hiding that Google funds Masnick looks bad. Especially since PaulT confirmed it.
No, I confirmed that Google is one of 9 sponsors on one of many projects that Mike is involved with. In fact, I didn't even need to confirm it, since it's displayed prominently on the very website you're criticising.
Now, explain how this translates into the person himself being funded by Google. Explain why that name is so important, yet you're not making the same idiotic claims about the other 8 companies listed there. Explain why Mike is so unique, since you're not attacking any other entrepreneur for being partially sponsored by Google.
Yes, I've confirm a single, publicly available, never denied piece of evidence. Now, you have to explain what the hell you think that means and why.
"You haven't quite buried my point"
I don't know what your point is yet, apart from "I found a publicly visible link between the object of my obsession and a company I randomly hate!". You've buried your own point among nonsensical ranting. Try again.
"Teh internets needs a term for trying to hide facts "
Sorry, I forgot to translate from English to Moron. In English, the definition for "hidden" is not "prominently displayed in public".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]