Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
from the it-is-written dept
This week, our first place winner on the insightful side is That One Guy in response to the police actually admitting fault in a SWAT raid on the wrong address, for once:
This? Do this more often. Do this ALL the time
Well now, if police acted like this all the time I and many others would be much more likely to cut them some slack on a regular basis when they screw up other times.
They screwed up and they owned it.
No attempt to shift the blame, no attempt to drag the innocent person through the mud and/or try to shift the narrative from 'SWAT team raids wrong house' to 'vile (probable) criminal shoots two cops for what are surely heinous reasons.'
While it's unfortunate, as noted in the article, that this isn't the default, and it is therefore a pleasant surprise when police actually show some personal responsibility like this, it is still a pleasant surprise nonetheless. Now if it can start happening with such regularity that it stops being a surprise, and is instead treated as what it should have been, 'just how it works', that'd be great.
In second place, we've got ryuugami responding to another situation in which the FBI put US citizens on the no fly list for refusing to become informants:
Land of the Free, Home of the Brave.
You'd think the people charged with protecting a country and everything it stands for wouldn't keep undermining that country and everything it stands for with their every breath, but here we are. Again. *sigh*
For editor's choice on the insightful side, we start out with a response from Gary to Twitter's ongoing moderation woes:
Silly But
But this is what happens when they are put under pressure to "Do Something" about fake news.
"Something" was done.
Next, we've got a comment from crade about the infuriating and essentially meaningless "left/right" political dynamic of the content moderation debate:
So basically as soon as left leaning people start making companies suddenly the right thinks capitalism doesn't work and the govn't should be controlling how big companies operate because they aren't being "fair" enough to everyone.
This is modern conservative thinking?
Am I the only one who finds all the whining about being treated unfair by the big internet companies and how we need to "do something about it" extremely... left?
Over on the funny side, our first place winner comes after an occasional Techdirt formatting bug struck last week's comment post, resulting in the right hand side of the text being obscured behind the page sidebar. Justok made an excellent joke:
Censorship of the RIGHT.
In second place, we've got DannyB responding to the should-be-obvious finding that yes, giving cops the finger is protected speech:
Some cops need to have their patrol duty restricted to patrolling only safe spaces where they won't be offended.
For editor's choice on the funny side, first we've got Baron von Robber with a take on Alex Jones's social media bans:
Alex Jones is a crisis actor pretending he got banned. He's really hiding in a pizza parlor basement with some martian kids.
And finally, we've got an anonymous response to the invocation of a Kim Dotcom quote in support of the argument for why Google, Twitter, Facebook et al need to be controlled:
I too studied under noted US constitutional law professor and justice Kim Dotcom.
That's all for this week, folks!
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
The First Word
“How sad it is...
...that so many comments recently belong to a category know as abusive, trolling, or spam, and the respondents to those comments. These entities (I believe there are more than one, style tells us who the repeat offenders are, and the difference) continue to do so because he/they get responses. While those responses may excoriate those posts, they also satisfy a significant need of the poster. Recognition! If only we could get the many responsible members of this community respond to instead flag and ignore, he/she/they may eventually go away due to lack of satisfaction. Maybe even the irresponsible members of this community.
Sure he/she/they push buttons. That's what he/she/they does. He does so to spark ire. Responses insure that the intended ire spark was successful. Let your ire get sparked and deal with it with some primal screaming (at least until your neighbors complain), or something (don't drink/use drugs it doesn't help) but ignore this/these asshole(s).
The concept of feeding trolls is that they want recognition. Any response to he/she/it/them no matter what you say, no matter how reasonable, no matter how insightful, it constitutes recognition, and therefore feeds the ego of the asshole(s) who dirty up these pages.
PLEASE DON'T FEED THE TROLLS BY NOT RESPONDING TO THEM, FLAG AND IGNORE INSTEAD! Trying to educate him/her/them (which is not often but always ignored) satisfies their need for recognition. Don't do it, and chastise those that do.
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
FUNNIEST is "Rich" admits Techdirt doesn't want "free speech"!
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20180923/22385240700/twelve-rules-not-being-total-free-s peech-hypocrite.shtml#c42
There you have "Rich" clearly stating exactly what I do! He blurted that Techdirt poses as a modern "web-log" but in fact intends / wishes to retain full editorial control just like an old-fashioned print magazine.
Techdirt's claims of hosting a forum for "free speech" are FALSE. The comments are supposed to A) make Masnick look good (as Rush Limbaugh used to openly say about his radio show callers), and B) support his corporatist agenda (as also true for Rush Limbaugh, though neither states it plainly). Tacitly, "Rich" also admits that it's a magazine format.
It's true that The Masnick doesn't apply that entirely, but only because CAN'T in practical fact! Not and be consistent with all his preaching. He's STUCK with what wrote long ago before his foibles and bias became obvious.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: FUNNIEST is "Rich" admits Techdirt doesn't want "free speech"!
Now, the mechanism that Masnick intentionally provides by way of both HTML and server code is all that allows "Gary" to boast this:
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20180923/22385240700/twelve-rules-not-being-total-free-spe ech-hypocrite.shtml#c83
Right, "Gary"! Techdirt sides with you against me otherwise you'd LOSE the argument! I don't dispute that it's partisan. You exactly proved my complaint, silly.
First, shows opinion that the purpose of "free speech" is to suppress that of others. 2nd, seems to have strong proprietary feeling EXACTLY as astro-turfing would. 3rd, it's again clear that "free speech" is NOT wanted here, only echoes to make Masnick look good. 4th, but ignore those, it's at best the clique here not wanting discussion at all, which is surely the very purpose of a comments section! -- Go ahead and do away with that, Masnick! Neither your fanboys nor I even want it!
My opinion is that "Gary" is actually more astro-turfing; the writing tone strongly resembles that of Timothy Geigner, aka "Dark Helmet", and lately strongly defends the site.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: FUNNIEST is "Rich" admits Techdirt doesn't want "free speech"!
Whatever Masnick's actual opinions, these are facts:
A) Techdirt does use code / provide button for the censoring mechanism.
B) Fanboys abuse that mechanism to suppress viewpoints well within common law, rather than "report" what's outside it.
*C) Masnick / Techdirt know point B, but do nothing at all, not even remark that all viewpoints should be seen. Tacitly approving low-level censorship for YEARS.
D) Masnick / Techdirt won't even state whether an Administrator has final approval, which is not only dodging responsibility but dishonest.
E) Masnick has repeated this fundamental stance as RARE statement, no hedging:
"And, I think it's fairly important to state that these platforms have their own First Amendment rights, which allow them to deny service to anyone."
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20170825/01300738081/nazis-internet-policing-content -free-speech.shtml
This all applies to Communications Decency Action, Section 230. I hold that Techdirt has no immunity because the comment by "Gary" above is true: this is indeed NOT a "free speech" comments / discussion taking advantage of two-way communication on the internet, but a magazine format intent on presenting biased view. YOU CANNOT HAVE IT ALL WAYS AT ONCE. Either Techdirt is a "plaform" for The Public or editor / publisher and liable for all comments.
That's the crux of argument. Techdirt regards Section 230 as only conferring power without drawback, not requiring least responsibility or notice of common law fairness.
Techdirt chooses to be the publisher of ALL comments because asserts that it has full editorial control -- even if not actually used for more than adding an editorial warning to some comments: I think that Masnick regards himself as "benevolent dictator", long suffering the unenlightened. (2 small points: Techdirt DOES remove some commercial spam. And someone could raise from the defamation case on repeating the comments, but wasn't decided or overly apposite to this.)
Note: the "censoring" or "hiding" or "downvoting" or whatever call the discrimination against certain viewpoints causes me to break this up into three parts so what when censored as it SOON will be, the swathe of the added editorial comment, the lie that it's too dangerous for the casual reader, helps point up that isn't merely one instance of commercial spam. -- Nor is it spam at all as the fanboys falsely claim. It's just MY opinion, which the site APPEARS to solicit, and visibly doesn't even have guidelines for, let alone reserve right to EDIT. Site and fanboys simply don't want ANY other viewpoints here. "Gary" is right, Techdirt is not a "free speech" forum for discussion, but little walled garden promoting corporatism.
You might also note the meta-view: that Techdirt is trying to be both at once, but it's not a workable plan so long as dissent can get in at all!
2nd note: it'd save a lot of time and space here if my comments were NOT censored! But since I'm forced to struggle for basic ability to comment here at all -- forced to use TOR because Techdirt blocks my home IP address -- then, that's the battle.
This alleged "free speech" site could follow its own advice besides clear law and simply be FAIR.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: FUNNIEST is "Rich" admits Techdirt doesn't want "free speech"!
This special breed goes by many names. The most prominent characteristic of this breed is a soapbox that is dragged to irrelevant places and used to shout about their own distorted version of reality.
The proper response to finding a "lunatic Soapman" is to yell at them to go away, as nobody wants them around. Sadly, this won't do anything. The "lunatic Soapman" will simply keep yelling and will likely use intolerance toward them as 'proof' of their own distorted views.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: FUNNIEST is "Rich" admits Techdirt doesn't want "free speech"!
forced to use TOR because Techdirt blocks my home IP address
Ah, this old chestnut again.
Blue, you get blocked because by your own admission, you repeatedly make the same messages at least twenty times. Which by definition triggers the spam filter. That, and the fact that you use a tool you previously claimed was exclusively used by BitTorrent pirates, is on you.
I respond to this message to clarify to new readers - who do exist despite blue's claims otherwise. What you see here is the equivalent of a perverted Peeping Tom who gets his jollies off by peeping through the window for the girls' changing room, whooping and catcalling. And now he's angry that the girls have made it a point to close the window and draw a curtain over it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: FUNNIEST is "Rich" admits Techdirt doesn't want "free speech"!
You see yourself as a sexy young girl with boys “whooping and catcalling” when they see you?
That’s just crazy.
More likely you are an unwashed smelly disgusting sexually frustrated old man, hanging out with the other societal rejects here.
That I could believe.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: FUNNIEST is "Rich" admits Techdirt doesn't want "free speech"!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: FUNNIEST is "Rich" admits Techdirt doesn't want "free speech"!
There. Filled your Sunday void, indulge your passion for vile ad hominem and urge to censor with clicks, and thereby believe that you've answered substantive argument.
And yet I get no thanks! -- Let alone recognition that your childish attacks harm the site.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
For someone who quit you sure are posting a lot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: FUNNIEST is "Rich" admits Techdirt doesn't want "free speech"!
If you're really as concerned about lies, and ad-hominems, and childish attacks on Techdirt as you claim you are, the perhaps stop supplying a major portion of them?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: FUNNIEST is "Rich" admits Techdirt doesn't want "free speech"!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: FUNNIEST is "Rich" admits Techdirt doesn't want "free speech"!
That's the thing: every time he does, they repaint it, and he goes off on a rant about how they're censoring him, because the wall (of their house) is public property since the public can walk right by it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Do you bill Mike for all the time he spends in your head, or do you let him stay there rent-free?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: FUNNIEST is "Rich" admits Techdirt doesn't want "free speech"!
Where was this claimed?
Or are you just lying, still, and again?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: FUNNIEST is "Rich" admits Techdirt doesn't want "free speech"!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: FUNNIEST is "Rich" admits Techdirt doesn't want "free speech"!
A site is not a forum. Neither is a voting system that points out consistently abrasive individuals, who openly admit their only aim is to grief for a response, antithetical to the idea of free speech. Or Masnick could have sued blue boy to Hell and back.
This counterpoint you propose is not the gotcha you think it is. It's barely a whimper.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: FUNNIEST is "Rich" admits Techdirt doesn't want "free speech"!
Speaking?
Or speaking opinions you don’t personally agree with.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: FUNNIEST is "Rich" admits Techdirt doesn't want "free speech"!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: FUNNIEST is "Rich" admits Techdirt doesn't want "free speech"!
Excuse me, what is “antithetical to the idea of Free Speech”?
Shiva Ayyadurai suing this website out of many others who claimed he did not invent email.
Where is the lawsuit against Ars Technica?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: FUNNIEST is "Rich" admits Techdirt doesn't want "free speech"!
It's a simple question.
It's obvious why you cannot answer it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
free speach??
OPEN opinion was REALLY stomped on..
Any new ideals were Edited and Never explained, it was just STOMPED ON...
And we have become abit...Conservative of those other alternatives to opinion..
And those in government, have taken OVER opinion...FBI/CIA/.../...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How sad it is...
...that so many comments recently belong to a category know as abusive, trolling, or spam, and the respondents to those comments. These entities (I believe there are more than one, style tells us who the repeat offenders are, and the difference) continue to do so because he/they get responses. While those responses may excoriate those posts, they also satisfy a significant need of the poster. Recognition! If only we could get the many responsible members of this community respond to instead flag and ignore, he/she/they may eventually go away due to lack of satisfaction. Maybe even the irresponsible members of this community.
Sure he/she/they push buttons. That's what he/she/they does. He does so to spark ire. Responses insure that the intended ire spark was successful. Let your ire get sparked and deal with it with some primal screaming (at least until your neighbors complain), or something (don't drink/use drugs it doesn't help) but ignore this/these asshole(s).
The concept of feeding trolls is that they want recognition. Any response to he/she/it/them no matter what you say, no matter how reasonable, no matter how insightful, it constitutes recognition, and therefore feeds the ego of the asshole(s) who dirty up these pages.
PLEASE DON'T FEED THE TROLLS BY NOT RESPONDING TO THEM, FLAG AND IGNORE INSTEAD! Trying to educate him/her/them (which is not often but always ignored) satisfies their need for recognition. Don't do it, and chastise those that do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How sad it is...
Acidic comments don't stop them, flaming doesn't stop them, shining light on their claims doesn't stop them...they're not very troll-ish at all.
Hmm...what's a mythical creature that's dumb, moronic, immature, and only goes away if you ignore it until it starves to death? Aside from small children?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
…the Pope?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: How sad it is...
Hmm...what's a mythical creature that's dumb, moronic, immature, and only goes away if you ignore it until it starves to death?
The Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: How sad it is...
The word "troll" in this context has nothing to do with mythical creatures. I explained this at more length back in January, albeit with an embarrassing typo or two.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How sad it is...
Which you don’t, of course. Other than smearing shit on yourself and on the walls, you have nothing to say at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: How sad it is...
The truth is that Techdirt is just another example of fake news and fake commentary.
Whether people respond or not, or whether comments are censored or not, makes no difference to people like Lindsey.
Publishing the truth is it’s own reward.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: How sad it is...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: How sad it is...
Very telling.
Ford was Lying.
Kavanaugh was telling the Truth.
Graham was telling the Truth.
Trump has allies who tell the Truth in high places. There is a movement of Truth forming, despite fake news like CNN and MSNBC, and fake commentary like Techdirt.
Truth. God. Country. Family. SCOTUS. MAGA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: How sad it is...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: How sad it is...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: How sad it is...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: How sad it is...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How sad it is
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You are the answer to your own riddle.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]