EFF Pioneer Awards: Chelsea Manning, Annie Game... And Me
from the neat dept
So here's a bit of nice news. Yesterday EFF announced this year's Pioneer Award winners, and they included Chelsea Manning, Annie Game... and me. I'm humbled to win the award -- but especially to be included with Chelsea and Annie, both of whom have gone to amazing lengths, and often sacrificed tremendous amounts, to do what they believe in to help make the world a better place. I just write about stuff. If you read Techdirt, you probably know about Chelsea Manning already -- we've certainly written about her, what she's done for this country, and the travesty of the charges and punishment she faced. Frankly, it's a joke to put me in a list with Chelsea Manning. We don't belong in the same conversation, let alone getting the same award. As for Annie Game -- you might not know the name, but she's a force to be reckoned with as well. She runs IFEX, which is on the front lines around the globe -- especially in repressive authoritarian-led countries -- fighting to protect a press that has few legal protections and standing up for free expression and access to information in very real and tangible ways (and sometimes in dangerous environments). I aspire to do work that will someday put me on a level with the things both Chelsea and Annie have done -- but in the meantime, I'm happy to share this award with them.
If you have not been, the Pioneer Awards event is always a blast, so if you're in the area on September 14th, please consider coming out to the ceremony. Tickets help support EFF, and I think we all know just how much amazing work EFF has done over the years.
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: annie game, chelsea manning, eff, pioneer awards
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Congrats
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Congrats
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Congratulations!
Congatulations!!
E
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Congrats!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
On jumping into the gears of the machine
Ere half my days in this dark world and wide,
And that one talent which is death to hide
Lodg'd with me useless, though my soul more bent
To serve therewith my Maker, and present
My true account, lest he returning chide;
"Doth God exact day-labour, light denied?"
I fondly ask. But Patience to prevent
That murmur, soon replies: "God doth not need
Either man's work or his own gifts; who best
Bear his mild yoke, they serve him best. His state
Is kingly. Thousands at his bidding speed
And post o'er land and ocean without rest:
They also serve who only stand and wait."
'When I Consider How My Light is Spent' by John Milton
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Groovy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Congratulations!
You may not be in the league of Chelsea Manning, but you are doing very good work! Hip-hip-hooray for all three of you!
Have fun at the ceremony :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Congratulation Mike
[ 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 ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Congratulations, Mike.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Heh, heh! BEST BIT of subtle satire here in a long time!
Unless of course one of the fanboys witlessly misused "righteous": adj. 1. acting in a just, upright manner; doing what is right; virtuous [a righteous man] 2. morally right; fair and just [a righteous act] 3. morally justifiable [full of righteous anger] 4. [Slang] good, excellent, satisfying, pleasant, authentic, etc.: a generalized term of approval ÄSYN moral
Not sure on that, but do see only TEN comments in TWO hours? And Masnick PAYS one of them to fawn.
I congratulate Masnick on his modesty for publishing this "news" I'd never see if didn't read Techdirt.
But I bet none of those persons more than roll their eyes as I did. Doesn't surprise any critic that Google-funded EFF gives Google-boy Masnick free artificial publicity in the "best defamation" category.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Heh, heh! BEST BIT of subtle satire here in a long time!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Heh, heh! BEST BIT of subtle satire here in a long time!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Heh, heh! BEST BIT of subtle satire here in a long time!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Heh, heh! BEST BIT of subtle satire here in a long time!
I'll let the mangled junk heap you call a brain slowly overheat to a crisp golden brown while it tries to work that out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Congrats to use and Chelsea
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Congrats to use and Chelsea
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Congrats to use and Chelsea
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Congrats to use and Chelsea
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Congrats to use and Chelsea
Your anti-trans bigotry has no place here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Congrats to use and Chelsea
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
LOLwut
Every “joke” you make about Chelsea Manning’s gender identity and genitalia is a judgment about her. Every time you talk about her that way, you judge her as being less of a person than you or I—if you even think of her as a person at all.
If Techdirt actually banned people from commenting here, those “jokes” should put you next in line for the banhammer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: LOLwut
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: LOLwut
Sexual orientation ≠ gender identity
Take your anti-trans rhetoric elsewhere.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: LOLwut
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: LOLwut
Techdirt’s stance on public comments does not matter even if Shiva can make the case that Techdirt actually defamed him. And besides, to clear that hurdle, he will have to disprove the facts that say “Shiva Ayyadurai did not invent email”—something he has never done before and will never be able to do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: LOLwut
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: LOLwut
Supporting protection of the right to free speech and expression does not require Techdirt to give up all control over the comments sections. The right to free speech does not guarantee you the right to use someone else’s platform however you wish.
And again, none of that matters because Shiva’s lawsuit is about whether Techdirt defamed him by reporting actual facts and sharing legally-protected opinions. He has yet to disprove the facts or offer any reason why those opinions rise to the level of defamation when presented alongside the facts about who invented email.
Piss off, you vulgar troll.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: LOLwut
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: LOLwut
This entire comment offers nothing but a string of irrelevant nonsense designed to distract me and anyone else who reads this drivel from the fact that you have never addressed the factual arguments raised in my comments.
You did not address whether Shiva can disprove the truth about the development of email, a feat that would make his lawsuit against Techdirt far easier to win. You did not address how the opinions on Ayyadurai offered by Techdirt writers are not protected by the First Amendment. And you certainly did not address how the comments sections here on Techdirt—not to mention all the name-calling you decry yet hypocritically take part in with ridiculous phrases such as “media supremacist”—has any relevance to whether Shiva can prove Techdirt defamed him by saying “Shiva Ayyadurai did not invent email”.
I award you no points, and may God have mercy upon your soul.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: LOLwut
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: LOLwut
No matter where they are, a jury must still weigh the facts of a given case before making a decision. Shiva Ayyadurai has never disproven the facts that say he did not invent email. He will have to do just that if he hopes to prove his claim of defamation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: LOLwut
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Let's demolish this once and for all.
And therein lies the problem: Shiva does not claim simply to have invented a program called “EMAIL”. He claims to have invented the first email program—and, by extension, email as we know it today.
For his claim to hold up, two facts must be proven true:
His program must be a kind of electronic messaging system.
Only the first fact can be proven true—and that is primarily because he copyrighted his program. The second, however, must be considered untrue for the fact that ARPANET beat him to the punch.
“But he says he invented the first email program, not the first electronic messaging program!” Yes, he does. On his “Inventor of Email” website, Ayyadurai claims that his program was the first to offer functions that are both present in modern email and mimicked physical inter-office mail systems. But this still means nothing because RFC 733—published at least several months before he began work on his program—proposed a specific set of standards for the ARPANET messaging system. Those standards, and the three major protocols developed around them, would eventually become standards for email as we know it today. None of those standards or protocols were influenced by the work of Shiva Ayyadurai.
The facts are clear: Both the ARPANET messaging system and the standard-setting RFCs are the most direct and important influences on the development of what would become email as we know it today—and Shiva Ayyadurai had nothing to do with either of those. If he wants to win his lawsuit against Techdirt, he will have to prove that Techdirt knowingly defamed him by reciting those facts as the truth; he can only do that if he can prove those facts are not the truth.
Since he has never been able to do so, I wish him the best of luck in court. He is going to need all the luck he can get, given how his case has no legal foundation beyond “the mean man hurt my fee-fees”.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Let's demolish this once and for all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Let's demolish this once and for all.
No, I do not. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the phrase “by extension” is defined as “taking the same line of argument further”. When I used the phrase in this sentence…
…it meant that I was extending the line of argument to encompass not just Ayyadurai’s claim that he invented “the first email program”, but his claim that he “email as we know it today”.
Yes.
I do not interpret his words to mean “anything [I] want”. I interpret his words based on their dictionary-defined meanings. He is the one who continually tries to re-define the meanings of words to his own benefit.
And you? You are deliberately trying to misuse and misinterpret words to deflect and distract from the fact that neither you nor the man you are defending has a factual, evidence-based argument to prove that Shiva Ayyadurai did not invent email.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Let's demolish this once and for all.
Sorry, slight correction:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Let's demolish this once and for all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Let's demolish this once and for all.
You seem awfully fanatical about defending Shiva Ayyadurai, but less so about defending him with facts that contradict the historical evidence which disproves his claims. I have to wonder why it is that you will defend him with such vigor and vitriol, but shy away when asked to offer a factual argument that backs up your defenses.
…oh, wait, now I remember: You don‘t have a factual argument to stand on. You have only obtuse, trollish behavior.
So piss off, you vulgar troll.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Congrats to use and Chelsea
No, when that they shoot ol yeller is sad.
That is pathetic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No, you haven't sacrificed as much as Chelsea Manning has, but you've still done good work, and you deserve recognition for it. We appreciate what you do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I also think it closes the circle. You have spent years as an effective recruiter for EFF, and now they reward you for it. The circle is complete.
Congrats, keep up the good work (and please, ask Karl to change topics from time to time, his droning on is getting dull!)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wow, Mike!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ZOMBIE ATTACK WARNING!
dickeyrat: 3 comments TOTAL in TEN years! Aug 17th, 2017, Jun 23rd, 2011, and Jul 10th, 2010!!! https://www.techdirt.com/user/dickeyrat
** OKAY, FANBOYS! EXPLAIN THIRD ZOMBIE POPPING UP AFTER SIX YEARS AND TWO MONTHS.**
YOU CAN'T, CUBED. -- I fully expected my hooting to make it stop, but clearly whoever runs this site is BRAZEN.
Here are the prior two again:
27 June: https://www.techdirt.com/user/andrewlduane -- On May 1st, 2017 pops up after about SIX years and five months before on Nov 23rd, 2010.
28 June: https://www.techdirt.com/user/slowgreenturtle Dec 15th, 2016, again SIX year and five month gap to Jul 13th, 2009.
NO ONE would recall name and password after SIX years, nor lurk that long with account handy.
Here's another too ODD to be true: yankinwaoz: 100 (a nice even 10 comments per year), with 18 and 40 month gaps! (Also changed screen name around then.) From 27 Feb 2007 https://www.techdirt.com/user/yankinwaoz
** THREE MAKES CERTAINTY. If you don't now suspect that many of the comments here are zombie sock-puppets, you ARE one!**
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ZOMBIE ATTACK WARNING!
Oh, shit, you don't think...
Zombie Groupies?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ZOMBIE ATTACK WARNING!
Also:
His comment in 2010 was about Disney.
His comment in 2011 was about Disney.
His comment in 2017 is about Disney.
Your conspiracy is just getting dumber and dumber. Like a zombie.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: ZOMBIE ATTACK WARNING!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: ZOMBIE ATTACK WARNING!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: ZOMBIE ATTACK WARNING!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: ZOMBIE ATTACK WARNING!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: ZOMBIE ATTACK WARNING!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: ZOMBIE ATTACK WARNING!
Take your anti-trans rhetoric elsewhere. It will win you no good will here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: ZOMBIE ATTACK WARNING!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: ZOMBIE ATTACK WARNING!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Toilets are less full of shit than you, sir.
Is there anything in this comment that even remotely resembles some sort of argument as to why Shiva is going to win? Because name-calling and baseless claims are all I see here, and frankly, that is not enough to convince me that saying “Shiva Ayyadurai did not invent email” rises to the level of defamation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Toilets are less full of shit than you, sir.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Toilets are less full of shit than you, sir.
Ah, yes, some fun with linguistics. Oh, how I adore picking apart the usage of language like this.
We can agree that Shiva’s basic claim is “I invented email”. The only usage in which this is true is the one where he means, “I invented a program called ‘EMAIL’.” This is provably true thanks to the copyright on his program.
But the usage he wants everyone to believe is the one where he means, “I invented email as everyone today knows and uses it.” That particular usage is demonstrably false. The ARPANET messaging system is the proven direct progenitor of modern email, specifically because the ARPANET system was developed across “public” networks through the work of several developers. Ayyadurai’s program was created in, existed in, and died in isolation; it influenced nothing and was important to nobody but him.
Every time Ayyadurai makes his claim and expects people to believe the provably false interpretation of said claim, he is a liar at worst and a delusional fool at best. Any time he tries to make money off of his claim, he defrauds anyone who believes he invented modern email.
Shiva Ayyadurai did not invent modern email. He invented a program called “email”, in isolation from the real work being done on what would become modern email, and did not influence that work in any way. And if I ever have the chance, I will call him a liar to his face.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Toilets are less full of shit than you, sir.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Sue me for what?"
If Shiva Ayyadurai wants to sue me personally for calling him a liar based on documented facts that contradict his factually and knowingly false claim of having invented modern email as we know it, let him.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: ZOMBIE ATTACK WARNING!
A copyright is not patent. They're both under intellectual property law, but to muddle and equate the two together is the sort of any rational IP lawyer would not make.
Which would explain where you're getting your legal advice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: ZOMBIE ATTACK WARNING!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: ZOMBIE ATTACK WARNING!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Proof of invention
Even if Shiva never got a patent on his program, that fact does not prove his claim that his work became the foundation of modern email and ARPANET’s did not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Proof of invention
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Proof of invention
Jerk, maybe, but at least I do not lie about having invented modern email as we know it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Proof of invention
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oh look, a wannabe Kira.
Son, if I have learned anything in my life, it is that people who keep lists of names in notebooks do so for three purposes: accounting, employee tracking, and figuring out who should get the first bullet.
Which number am I on your hit list, sir?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Oh look, a wannabe Kira.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Oh look, a wannabe Kira.
Son, if you think any of my comments are going to be relevant in any court of law, I‘ll remind you that I have consistently and repeatedly ask you to disprove the claim “Shiva Ayyadurai did not invent email as we know it today” and you have not once ever tried to do that. So hey, record and report me all you want.
It makes no damn bit of difference to me, seeing as how Shiva is the liar. I’m not the one going around and claiming to have invented email in spite of the documented evidence saying otherwise.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: ZOMBIE ATTACK WARNING!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: ZOMBIE ATTACK WARNING!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Copyrighted descriptions mean nothing.
I could write a detailed description of email, submit it to the US Copyright Office, and receive a copyright on that description.
Having that copyright does not mean that I invented email.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Copyrighted descriptions mean nothing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Copyrighted descriptions mean nothing.
That depends on whether I was trying to backdate and shoehorn my work into the history books. You know, just like Shiva Ayyadurai is trying to do when he claims that he invented email despite the factual, historical evidence that says otherwise.
His invention was created in, lived in, and died in isolation. ARPANET’s work on networked messaging predates the creation of his work, making it the proven direct progenitor of modern email. Neither you nor he can disprove the evidence which backs up those two statements.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Copyrighted descriptions mean nothing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyrighted descriptions mean nothing.
He invented a program called “EMAIL” in isolation from the work being done on the actual direct progenitor of modern email. He also was not the first person to use or think of the phrase “electronic mail” or the subsequent “email” portmanteau. Why, it is almost as if he has to misrepresent historically documented evidence to prove his claims. Imagine that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyrighted descriptions mean nothing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyrighted descriptions mean nothing.
A program he called "email", based on pre-existing concepts. If I write a spreadsheet program and copyright it with the name "spreadsheet", that doesn't mean I can put my name in the history books as inventing the spreadsheet.
Even you're not as stupid as you pretend to be. Neither is that liar and fraud Shiva who you try to so valiantly defend - he knows he's a con man.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyrighted descriptions mean nothing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyrighted descriptions mean nothing.
Every concept in email existed before his work did.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyrighted descriptions mean nothing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyrighted descriptions mean nothing.
Shiva’s claim to be the inventor of modern email hinges, in part, on the notion that he combined those concepts into a single program before anyone else ever did, in part or in whole.
He did not. At all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyrighted descriptions mean nothing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyrighted descriptions mean nothing.
I have an argument. Where is yours?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyrighted descriptions mean nothing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nope.
His copyright means only that he wrote his program when he did. He still has to answer for every other false or misleading claim that can be demolished by documented historical facts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Nope.
"His copyright means only that he invented Email when he did".
That's actually factually accurate, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Nope.
Technically, yes, his program was called “email”. But he was not the first person to use that particular portmanteau.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Nope.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Nope.
No, he did not. He can possibly lay claim to parallel first usage of the word with CompuServe. But the phrase “electronic mail”, from which “email” is derived”, had been in use well before Shiva ever wrote a line of code. And simply coming up with the word would still not make him the word’s “inventor”, as he would have to prove that he was the first person ever to think of that specific portmanteau, and that is something which he cannot do.
And even if—if!—he could do such a thing, it would still not prove his claim that he is the inventor of modern email as we know it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Nope.
So, if I write a program that I call "electricity" and I get that name copyrighted, you think that means I can claim to have invented electricity?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Nope.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Nope.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyrighted descriptions mean nothing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Copyrighted descriptions mean nothing.
There is such a thing as multiple discovery
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_discovery
But, it doesn't mean that one of the inventors can honestly claim to be the only originator, as that liar and fraud Shiva is trying to do.
"What is being said is he is arguably right, and calling him a liar and a fraud is just reckless"
No, it's true. In the early 80s, one might be tempted to give him the benefits of a doubt. 30 years later and trying to build a career solely on something he knows is untrue? Sorry, he's a fraud and liar and you know it.
"generally cost him a lot of money and grief"
Good. People who are attempting to extract money and power through fraud and lies deserve every cost they acquire.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: ZOMBIE ATTACK WARNING!
You have identified the thing missing from this AC poster. Wow.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ZOMBIE ATTACK WARNING!
Out of all of your wacko conspiracy theories, this one really make me laugh, Blue.
It doesn't even dawn on you that other people might maintain a Techdirt login to retain their viewing preferences and are only occasional commenters.
I know I personally prefer to be logged into Techdirt when reading the articles because I prefer the page width set to "variable" which fills up my HD monitor, instead of a small column in the middle of the screen. I am always logged in when reading Techdirt, even when I don't plan on commenting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: ZOMBIE ATTACK WARNING!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: ZOMBIE ATTACK WARNING!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: ZOMBIE ATTACK WARNING!
Another account perk: There's now an unused "turn off Techdirt ads" button in my account settings.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Prove it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Xavier, Renegade Angel, would be proud.
Can we vote this specific sentence in as Funniest Comment of the Week? This sentence is so absurd that it is practically a work of art. If @dril saw this, he would get jealous that he did not think of it first.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Xavier, Renegade Angel, would be proud.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Well, that and the actual crimes he committed. But, why would you let facts get in the way of a good story, that's not your style!
"Obama let that convicted criminal out of jail, and no one likes it, that's the truth"
I'm not sure which is dumber, the fact that you think Obama was personally involved, the fact that you apparently think that he was president in July 2017 when Simpson was released or the fact that you think that a president should be demanding people spend longer than their sentenced term in jail.
"I think I invented a word"
Well, you invent your own reality and definition of sanity, so words must be easy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Ah, correction: that was when he was granted parole. He's not actually out of jail until October 1st.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the contrary: Plenty of Americans celebrated the commutation of Chelsea Manning’s sentence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Chelsea’s family.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The "and no one likes it" is demonstrably false, though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
A commutation, not a pardon. A pardon expunges the conviction; a commutation doesn't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A question for all you non-white Supremacists
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What
What
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A question for all you non-white Supremacists
Well, to me it says nothing about either. It says a lot about the you and the echo chamber the you to appear to have isolated yourself in.
A white non-supremacist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The cognitive dissonance runs deep around here!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The drooling idiocy of your friends is still visible to anyone who wishes to click on the comments. They're really just not worth the time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Are you still under the delusion that there is a person doing this rather than a software algorithm? I seem to remember asking for evidence to the contrary that mysteriously never appears. Perhaps because it doesn't exist?
Plus, no matter how much you mental midgets whine about it, nothing is being censored. This is just the community warning each other that some comments aren't worth the time to read.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
If your post is held for moderation, it never makes it here and never gets marked as flagged. It's two different things.
I know, two things. Hard for you to imagine, right?
" This is just the community warning each other that some comments aren't worth the time to read."
No, it's a very small part of the overall readership deciding what the rest of the people should read. That's the basis of censorship, when the few tell the majority what to read.
I actually think at this point that the threshold is so low that it takes only a handful of "flags" to get thing shut down. As a result, one or two people likely have enough sock puppet accounts to log on and flag anything they like into hidden status. Ad one or two people like you (who clearly flags everything he disagrees with) and boom, thing get hidden.
It's not the same as the dreaded "held for moderation". You never get to flag those, because you never see them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"If your post is held for moderation, it never makes it here and never gets marked as flagged."
Funny, I've made posts as an AC (before signing up), using TOR even, that were "held for moderation." A couple hours later, my posts went through, and never got flagged after they appeared.
Gee, it's almost like only spam and other detritus gets blocked, not legitimate comments.
"No, it's a very small part of the overall readership deciding what the rest of the people should read. That's the basis of censorship, when the few tell the majority what to read."
Except flag-throwing users have zero control over what others can read, since the flagged trolling/abuse remains in-place and readable, should one choose to do so. The only comments I've ever seen removed are bots posting malicious/scam links (and sometimes not even then).
Even if Techdirt were to start kicking you vermin to the curb, it still wouldn't be censorship or violating your free speech, just the opposite. Techdirt has the first-amendment right to free association. They're 100% in their rights if they choose to no longer have their speech platform associated with perpetual liars.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Except flag-throwing users have zero control over what others can read, since the flagged trolling/abuse remains in-place and readable, should one choose to do so. "
Not completely true. Flagged comments are (a) not presented at the same time as others, and (b) are not indexed by Google, and (c) are as a result not searchable on Google. In essence, the comments are not given the same standing or exposure.
"Even if Techdirt were to start kicking you vermin to the curb, it still wouldn't be censorship or violating your free speech, just the opposite. Techdirt has the first-amendment right to free association. They're 100% in their rights if they choose to no longer have their speech platform associated with perpetual liars."
You are correct again, but you are managing to completely miss the point. Techdirt often points out and mocks sites that turn off comments or otherwise disable comment son their sites, mocking their lack of "free speech". In my books, if Techdirt wants to be a bastion of free speech, then that should start at home.
The use of comment flagging because you don't agree with the opinion expressed isn't free speech. It's working to eliminate speech you don't like. That's the first step in hate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I only flag comments that look like trollish bullshit or contain disingenuous arguments made for the sake of taking a potshot at this site and those who regularly comment here. If that tends to overlap with a good chunk of your comments, well, you have to solve that problem yourself.
Techdirt can be a “bastion of free speech” and still hide comments behind the community flagging system. Discretion is “we are not going to say this”. Censorship is “you are not going to say this”. Techdirt’s discretion—automated or manual—does not prevent the people with flagged comments from making those exact same comments anywhere else.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You are correct again, but you are managing to completely miss the point. Techdirt often points out and mocks sites that turn off comments or otherwise disable comment son their sites, mocking their lack of "free speech". In my books, if Techdirt wants to be a bastion of free speech, then that should start at home.
Not so, when TD points out sites disabling comments they are very good about pointing out that the sites are absolutely within their rights to do so, that if they don't want to deal with comments they don't have to and don't 'owe' it to people. What they call them out on is the blatant lies about how disabling comments is a show of respect or support for the ones making them, 'mocking' them for the laughably wrong assertions that disabling comments is somehow encouraging visitor interactions.
That, not 'sites disabling comments is bad' is the focus of those stories, and there is nothing inconsistent between defending free speech in general and allowing the community to report those that that they feel are making a mess of the forum provided for discussion, being disruptive or in general being a pest.
The use of comment flagging because you don't agree with the opinion expressed isn't free speech. It's working to eliminate speech you don't like. That's the first step in hate.
So long as you continue beating up this strawman it makes it impossible to take you seriously. It's possible that people are flagging comments because they 'don't agree with them', but I'm fairly sure that's the minority, with most being aimed quite rightly at spam/trollish/abusive comments.
If for example you can't understand why the comments made by the individual you originally defended are being flagged, and think that it's simply because 'people don't agree with their opinions' then I can only assume that you've got vastly different standards for acceptable behavior and what exactly counts as 'trollish/abusive'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
In the game of Troll Bingo, "You're just calling me a troll because I disagree with you!" is the free square.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
(And apparently if this happens to sites that are reported for piracy, regardless of whether they actually contribute to piracy or provide pirated material, you're somehow fine with this. But your comment being hidden is suddenly a First Amendment travesty. Copyright fans gotta have double standards, I guess.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Why would you be searching Google for the content of the comments?
"Techdirt often points out and mocks sites that turn off comments or otherwise disable comment son their sites, mocking their lack of "free speech"."
Which is why they don't do those things. However, the community also demands some control, and we're given the largest amount possible without removing other rights to anonymity, etc.
"The use of comment flagging because you don't agree with the opinion expressed isn't free speech."
Yes, it is - it's the people commenting telling you something. That you're too stupid or self-centred to understand the message does not make it not free speech. Again, free speech does not shield you from consequences or criticism, and the community telling you that you're an insufferable dick that's not worth reading is their exercise of speech.
That's one of the reasons so many find you insufferable - you not only demand a free platform to spew your deflections and lies unchallenged but demand that nobody has the opportunity to enjoy the conversation unfettered by you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Lies. I've recently had comments held for moderation and they always appear.
"Hard for you to imagine, right?"
Perhaps start dealing with verifiable facts rather than what you can personally imagine, then? It's a little easier.
"As a result, one or two people likely have enough sock puppet accounts to log on and flag anything they like into hidden status"
Or, regular people thinking "oh ffs really" and clicking report instead of reply when they read the next round of utter bollocks spewing from your keyboard?
Again, just because you have invented a reality where you're the poor innocent victim, that may not be true.
"It's not the same as the dreaded "held for moderation". You never get to flag those, because you never see them."
Yes we do, because judging by the number of times you and your AC inbred sympathisers bitch about comments being held that are completely visible, we read, reply and flag them all the time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You may be the only one, but this is because you suffer under the mistaken belief that a person fighting for and respecting the right of free speech and expression must also be forced into giving up control of a platform they own to anyone who asks for it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
In the United States, people who own platforms for expression offer access to those platforms. Unless the platform is government-owned, access to that platform can be revoked at any time by the platform’s owner for any reason—including no reason at all. Even your right to use public spaces can be rescinded based on a limited set of factors. The right to free speech does not give you the right to force someone else into hosting that speech.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20170602/12424237507/erasing-history-trump-administration-ret urning-cia-torture-report-to-be-destroyed.shtml
I'm guessing most of it is undying love, because I'm not reading through all that lovesick fanfiction you like to peddle so much.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yeah, it's just you
Because you apparently need to be reminded, take it away XKCD.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I disagree that you "just write" and "aren't on the same level". There's no weapon as powerful as the pen (or the keyboard for modern times heh) and that's why authoritarian people and countries try so hard to suppress speech.
Your contribution is not to be underestimated and the fact that you have been recognized multiple times through different channels (with mentions to your work) is evidence of the importance. Heck, the trolling in this very article is definitive evidence you are doing it awesomely right.
I'd like to congratulate the rest of TD writers. It's obvious that Mike doesn't do it alone and you have all earned the award along with him. Congratulations!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Here's a thought experiment you might enjoy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Here's a thought experiment you might enjoy
Then who are the people you keep attacking with your rambling idiocy?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Here's a thought experiment you might enjoy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I'm not American, nor located anywhere on your continent. If you were as interested in reading what I actually post as you are in typing utter crap, you'd have noticed that by now.
But, this is why your jingoistic nonsense is so fun to respond to - it's not only incredibly silly from my point of view, but dripping with ignorance.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Hiding your comments has nothing to do with the concept of supremacy, nor is it censorship (we can see all your comments, I just wasted about half an hour reading through them).
It's very hard to take you seriously when you intersperse every comment with bigoted, hateful, angry, condescending remarks in every post you've ever made.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Seeing your constant support of Trump, who in fact supports the Supremacists you claim to loathe, it's no wonder why you're so enamored. It's because you're an authoritarian, and a specimen of the simpering, easily outraged variety at that.
President Trump would rather saw off his own leg than admit that the Supremacists screwed up, big time. He'd rather blame the "alt left", which you have proclaimed a great dislike for as well.
We'll just stand behind the safety barriers while the putrid rubbish dump you use for a brain starts to overheat.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"OK, sorry, you're right, you're a foreigner and I forgot."
This has no bearing on my input, nor the ability for me to join in the conversation. Your weird nationalist fixation doesn't change the fact that your words are visible across the entire planet, nor the fact that everyone reading them can respond. Retreat to whatever US-only hole you wish if you find the other 95% of the world's population uncomfortable to acknowledge.
"I've researched it, seems pretty much everybody agrees Chelsea is a traitor to America."
Your research appears lacking, but given that you apparently hold anyone outside of a narrow definition to be suspect you're hardly going to get the truth of the matter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's too bad Shiva can't invent a way to pick a better PR attack dog...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pioneer Award
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Congrats
Some pretty important things have been covered by TD over the years, and neither threats minor or major have stopped you from covering them so I'd call that an important action worthy of being noted.
However, if you feel that you don't deserve to be put on the same level as the other two named in the award I'd say use that as motivation to strive to be even better than before so that you do feel like you deserve equal recognition with them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And Mike's shining the spotlight on threats to society minor amd major via his writing has played some part in stopping some of them, by bringing them to the attention of the right (or just to enough) people. Kudos to Mike.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]