This Week In Techdirt History: August 6th - 12th
from the it-happened! dept
Five Years Ago
This week in 2012, we saw a couple interesting leaks. The fair use text from the TPP was made public, and we discovered (with little surprise) that the US proposals were about weakening fair use, not strengthening it. Meanwhile, a leak of MPAA documents revealed their plans to use sock puppets to smear Richard O'Dwyer, the TVShack operator that the agency was trying to extradite from the UK. And speaking of questionable extraditions, we wondered why New Zealand prosecutors were trying so hard to prevent the release of videos of the raid on Kim Dotcom's home — but were again unsurprised when some portions were released and even NZ police admitted it was "over the top".
Ten Years Ago
This week in 2007, school boards were finally slowly starting to get over their fear about kids and the internet, folks were pushing hard for a ban on all the "internet hunting" that wasn't actually happening, and the New York Times was getting ready to pull the plug on its failed premium paywall experiment, TimesSelect. Meanwhile, in a display that is mostly just sad when you look back on it, Blockbuster bought Movielink from Hollywood for a pittance, hoping it could transform it into a real player in the digital media space.
Fifteen Years Ago
Blockbuster was at it this week in 2002 as well, finally eyeing competition from Netflix (still just a mailing subscription service at the time) and considering launching something similar, while the TV industry was fighting to try to make DVRs useless alongside the introduction of digital TV. We also enjoyed a three part series from Wired about the insane radio dominance of Clear Channel. And we took an interesting look at EULAs, which weren't quite as bad then, as evidenced by the surprise and concern over a new Windows EULA that allows Microsoft to update your system when it chooses.
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
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
In the last week
Here's a challenge - present your ideas and allow others to present theirs, then defend your ideas. Can't do it? No surprise. Techdirt is a bunch of weak losers, without the ability to defend their speech, only the ability to silence the speech of others.
Of course, when considered in a historical context, this is also true of the last month, year, decade, and pretty much forever. Only cowardly losers would suppress so much speech, and then justify it as "supporting journalism". You guys are the laughing stock of the publishing industry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: In the last week
You first.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: In the last week
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: In the last week
Techdirt's comment section is like Techdirt's front lawn. Techdirt's comment policy is an open invitation to come in and chat. You and your ilk, however, are the inconsiderate dog-walkers who come over and do nothing but leave steaming turd piles on the lawn. What you imagine to be "censorship" is in reality the more responsible guests dumping your shit into a secluded corner of the yard. Your comments are still here stinking up the place, they're just more out-of-the way and less likely for the unwary to step in. If someone really wants to wade through it, it's still available for them to do so, which would be impossible if Techdirt were actually censoring anything.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: In the last week
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: In the last week
So, now that we've made that word completely useless, what *new* term shall we coin for serious and dangerous infringements on people's free speech?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: In the last week
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: In the last week
By that logic, anyone who files a DMCA takedown on a Google result for illegally distributed content is guilty of censorship, too. When will you be calling for that kind of censorship to end?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: In the last week
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: In the last week
Show your proof or shut the hell up, you vulgar troll.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: In the last week
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
LOLwut
Last time I checked, Techdirt has not yet published an article about that ridicule-worthy manifesto. We cannot see what Techdirt said on the subject if they have not actually published any articles that cover it.
You once again try to deflect and distract from the subject at hand instead of presenting any factual evidence to back up a supposed factual claim. Either show proof that Techdirt is owned by Google—actual, factual, independently verifiable evidence which everyone here can view and judge the veracity of for themselves—or piss off, you vulgar troll.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: LOLwut
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: LOLwut
"Ms Cockcroft suddenly became very angry and threatened to ruin my business before it started. She said that she was in with a very influential group of people on a technical blog who would write about me and many other people would comment. She said this would mean that my reputation would be ruined and it would remain at the tip of Google."
"At the tip of Google", did you get that? How exactly does one get published at the "tip of Google" (which Techdirt does) without colluding with Google? Why is Techdirt rated so high, it's not the writing (every other word is sh*t), it's not the fame and followers of the writer or the posters - they are all strictly Amateur Hour. How does one get to the "tip of Google" without Google?
Answer - Google <-> Techdirt
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: LOLwut
Again, all you provide is deflection and distraction. You offered no tangible evidence to back up your claim; all you did was prattle on and say nothing of substance.
Your other reply also features no evidence of Google owning or operating Techdirt. It recycles the accusations levied at Wendy Cockcroft, who has nothing to do with this discussion, and asks what look like reasonable questions in an attempt to hide how you have not actually proven your claim.
Show me financial transactions that prove Google owns Techdirt. Show me access records and IP logs that prove someone at Google operates Techdirt. Show me any kind of actual evidence that verifies your claim—no deflection, no distraction, no obtuse questions and nonsensical attacks against other people—or piss off, you vulgar troll.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: LOLwut
I like your ideas, too: access records and IP logs, those sound like good things to look for, mark that down, Charles.
About Wendy, I think it's relevant, and you have not actually tried to answer my question (though I did like what you wrote other than that). Care to answer my question? How do you think Techdirt gets so high in the ranking of Google? What do you think accounts for it? Great insights, a large following, huge popularity, broad acceptance and interest, largest held opinion? Most Techdirt readers are in the US, most articles are about the US (in a negative way), but most posters and writers are not (and lie about it). What accounts for Techdirt's popularity on Google? What's your opinion? Blind luck?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nope.
You have offered no evidence that affirms your claims. Your questions are both irrelevant to that claim and a clear attempt to deflect from your lack of evidence.
Either prove Google owns/operates Techdirt or piss off, you vulgar troll.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Nope.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Nope.
But Techdirt isn't an "arm of Google", and if Shiva were to go up against Google on that flawed premise he'd have his ass wiped across the ground, with shards of broken glass strewn all over it (the ground, not his ass).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: In the last week
He's wrong about that too. I just searched for exact words in the comment above and lo and behold it returns this article. There is no snippet showing, but Google most definitely indexes hidden Techdirt comments.
https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Atechdirt.com+%22When+you+hide+a+post%2C+you+can%27t +see+it%2C+search+for+it%2C+have+it+indexed+on+Google%2C+nothing.%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: In the last week
Here's a challenge - present your ideas and allow others to present theirs, then defend your ideas.
Been doing that with tens of thousands of posts for 20 years.
So now here's a challenge for you - come up with counterarguments that intelligent people consider worthy of engagement or response.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: In the last week
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: In the last week
If the people making counterarguments were doing so in good faith—if they were not known trolls and provocateurs—we would give them a chance.
For example: I made some comments on that “protect free speech on campus” story earlier this week, and I did not once report anyone who merely disagreed with me. They made a genuine effort to have a discussion with me, and I made one back. They made an effort to show they did the work necessary to hold an opinion.
They are not entitled to an opinion. They are entitled only to what they can argue for. If they cannot or will not argue for their position in good faith, they will be mocked and ridiculed for it. Their posts may be reported as well.
If you want a discussion, put in the work to have one. If you want an argument, or if you want to troll people who are trying to have a reasoned and civil discussion…well, that is why 4chan exists.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: In the last week
When I think of the words "totalitarian" and "dictatorial", what I hear are regimes and people that do not listen. When you arbitrarily label someone as not worth listening to, you are behaving in a totalitarian and dictatorial way. This is America, and if it's not America for you, it's still a good idea to listen to ideas, and not be a totalitarian dictatorial jerk, which you are NOT. I kind of like you, actually, though we don't agree much.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: In the last week
I have a read a lot of your arguments, and I believe you are actually sincere and appearing as yourself. ... You have persuaded me of your sincere intentions
I suggest you get an early night and have a good long think about why it might be that absolutely nobody feels the same way about your arguments.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: In the last week
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: In the last week
When did you stop beating your wife, sir?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: In the last week
I am not someone who files a lawsuit in an attempt to silence both the truthful reporting of facts and the expression of legally protected opinions. That is far more totalitarian and dictatorial than my calling someone a dumbass.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: In the last week
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: In the last week
Let's see where the goalposts are now - ah. In the straw man end zone.
I have been reading here far, far longer than i have had an account, and i have seen people disagree all the time without any of that happening. There are, however, both transient and long-term trollish accounts who regularly post insulting items with nothing to back up the insults. So your tone policing is going to have to start with those people first. (Not that tone policing is useful, but apply it fairly if you must apply it at all.) People will respond with mockery and invective, certainly. But with most people i see in the comments, that mockery comes _with an actual argument_, or as a result of their disputant merely repeating assertions without ever providing any evidence for them.
I also get the impression that you imagine the regular, non-hater crowd here agree among themselves and with any opinion produced by *"Mike". This is not necessarily true at all.
*Mike: Mike Masnick or anyone else who has ever written a post for techdirt. Also, roughly half the commentariat, depending on which conspiracy theorist it is to whom you subscribe. (Actually, all our personal names are Mike, only differing in our surnames. And we have consecutive social security numbers.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: In the last week
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: In the last week
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: In the last week
You have done nothing to show us why we should respect your comments or the supposed “arguments” within them. All you do is post this sort of obtuse garbage where you do not actually raise a point, yet act as if your non-existent point deserves an honest reply.
You accuse Leigh of “censoring” those with whom she disagrees for two decades, but nowhere after that accusation do you offer anything to prove it. You ask a bunch of questions that have no relation to your accusation. Nothing about that comment reads like an attempt at a civil and rational debate, if only because nothing in that comment is either civil or rational.
If you had an argument with actual merit behind it or an accusation with actual proof to back it up, you might get some respect. But all you do is dismiss and deflect and distract. You do not deserve respect—you deserve only the fate of having your comments hidden and having me call you what you are: a vulgar troll whose continued presence here is unwelcome and unnecessary.
(As for me? I have literally nothing better to do with my time.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You know it's kinda funny that you're ignoring the manifesto by the recently fired Google engineer.
Ignore it and it'll go away?
I used to respect techdirt, but now they themselves have become dirt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"Employee opposes diversity efforts at his company" isn't a tech story. That it happened at a tech company doesn't change that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
This guy pointed out that women have not tended to excel in the field of engineering. Duh, Everybody knows that, just look at engineering teams or engineering colleges or engineering universities and ask anyone familiar with the subject. Me, for example. I taught at the University level as a young man, at the community college level when older, and supervised, hired and fired hundreds of engineers. Not so many women. Truth is, women usually don't like Engineering much, it doesn't make them happy to study it, so they tend to do something else. So what?
What Google is pointing out is the difference between diversity of sex, skin color, etc., and diversity of thought. This fellow had a thought, he had an opinion, and he expressed it. This is America, he should be able to do that without repercussions from his employer.
On the other hand, the fellow is clearly talented as a communicator, having upset so many people. He likely has a bright future, and can tell the Google jerks to go pound sand. That's the beautiful thing about the US. Smart people have a lot of choices. And dictatorial companies that try to enforce "groupthink" (like Techdirt) never attract or retain the best. That's been proven again and again. Google is on the decline. Not surprising, after all this time. Big companies suck, as a rule.
So, I think my title works better: "Employee points out the obvious, and gets fired for it, ridiculed by the left, and generally made a hero to everyone else". Bright future for that fellow, I'll bet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Maybe that has to do with how women, from a young age all the way into adulthood, are pushed away from STEM fields by men who believe that said fields are “men’s work”.
Maybe they dislike it because men like you often tell them, at every chance you get, that they will not—or cannot—enjoy it.
Maybe he should have checked to see if Google is a government-owned corporation and not a private employer who can hire and fire people for any reason not covered under anti-discrimination laws.
Maybe he should have thought about whether his opinion would have cost him his job before he sent out a ten-page screed about how his female co-workers should basically quit their jobs.
Maybe he should have considered that “diversity of thought” runs both ways—that having nothing but the same perspective on the same issues is ultimately self-defeating, and cutting all women out of the discussion means losing their perspective.
Maybe this is because the Silicon Valley tech sector is awash in “brogrammers” like him, and his anti-female screed more than likely got him brownie points with such douchebags.
Maybe people who think of someone so openly and unapologetically sexist as him—someone who thinks women should get out of STEM fields and tech work because it is an inherently “gendered” activity—should not be considered a hero.
…wow, I used “maybe” a lot. Maybe you should consider knocking that word off all those paragraphs and reading them as unqualified statements so you can see just how bad your argument really sounds.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: women, from a young age all the way into adulthood, are pushed away from STEM fields by men who believe that said fields are “men’s work”.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: women, from a young age all the way into adulthood, are pushed away from STEM fields by men who believe that said fields are “men’s work”.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: women, from a young age all the way into adulthood, are pushed away from STEM fields by men who believe that said fields are “men’s work”.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
It's almost as if if women tend to keep having a harder time in fields like engineering exactly because people like you are constantly making that assumption. From the way they are raiosed, to school, to work environments. Never mind the the ocean of other forms of sexism the swim through daily. It doesn't need to be outright, active sexism, so the excuse "I don't do that" is a non-starter. The deeply ingrained, unexamined cultural bullshit which people get all super defensive over when it is pointed out to them, that's the problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
seems pretty likely that they just didn't like you
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
If you hire women for a job based on whether you get an erection when you look at them and you are not the owner of a strip club, a porn studio, or a Hooters franchise, you have serious issues.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
What's next?
According to Darwin:
"Female mating preferences are widely recognized as being responsible for the rapid and divergent evolution of male secondary sexual traits..."
So basically women are mostly responsible for the evolution of men.
I suppose now Darwin is a sexist...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
It is if you believe the acknowledgement of those differences proves the superiority of one sex over the other.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Care to quote which part of his manifesto implies that?
Diversity for the sake of diversity is just as toxic as sexism and racism since you're deliberately not hiring those who are qualified for a position if their race and sex doesn't fit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Two things:
Shiva Ayyadurai has an incredibly high bar to clear if he wants to win in court, seeing as how he has never been able to disaffirm the facts that contradict his “I invented email” claim, which lies at the centre of his defamation lawsuit against Techdirt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Frustra fit per plura quod potest fieri per pauciora"
"Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Teeheehee!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This week in Techdirt History
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This week in Techdirt History
[ link to this | view in chronology ]