Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
from the fair-comment dept
This week, our first place winner on the insightful side is Thad with a thought about the YouTube ContentID fail that took down Beat Saber videos after the game was featured on Jimmy Fallon:
And, lest we forget, filters like these are now mandatory in the EU.
I say "like these" -- actually, most companies don't have Google's resources. Filters are now mandatory in the EU -- and most of them will be worse than ContentID.
In second place, we've got Cdaragorn responding piece-by-piece to a comment about Section 230 and free speech:
The US is out of step with the rest of the world
That doesn't make us wrong or them right.
That's called republication
No it isn't. They didn't republish it. They pointed to the spot someone else published it. If you can't be honest with what's actually happening nothing you have to say about it is worth listening to.
Not in cases of libel
Libel is not something contained anywhere in the Constitution. That document does in fact place the value of expression above any harm that might come from it. Libel is a stupid concept created by people who aren't willing to deal with having their feelings hurt. It's dumb and has no place in a civilized society or anywhere else quite frankly.
Section 230 only follows the rules set forth in our Constitution.
Actually it does not. It creates an exception to 170 years of libel law
Actually, it does. The libel laws you're referencing are what violate the rules set out in the Constitution. The Constitution is very clear on the fact that the freedom to speak is VASTLY more important than any harm that might come from that speech.
This point isn't even addressing the issue Section 230 addresses, though. Section 230 doesn't say libel is ok. All it says is you have to punish the person who ACTUALLY SAID THE THINGS YOU DON'T LIKE. Anyone else pointing out what someone else said is never wrong and is not adding to the harm. It's just part of the harm caused by the original hurtful statements. The only possible excuse for going after the platform is greed since they are far more likely to actually have money than the speaker is. That is not something that should ever be allowed in the law.
For editor's choice on the insightful side, we start out with one more comment — anonymous this time — correcting misconceptions about Section 230:
A. Nobody is harmed by 230. They're harmed by the content posted by an individual.
B. The harmful content is not the expression of the platform. It is the expression of the individual who posted it.
C. The Constitution places the value of expression above those it might harm. Section 230 only follows the rules set forth in our Constitution.
So what is it? You want the Constitution amended again to suit your feels?
Next, we've got a comment from That One Guy responding to someone who compared a ruling against flashing headlights to warn about speed traps to drug lookouts and pimps:
Telling people not to speed, versus lookouts for drug or sex trafficking... you know, there's some sort of difference here but I just can't put my finger on it, almost as though it's a really bad comparison...
Over on the funny side, our first place winner is an anonymous take on the Beat Saber video situation:
Dirty pirates....
Obviously those @BeatSaber guys are just dirty pirates trying to steal Jimmy Fallon's show from NBC.
I for one am glad they got the #BeatDown they deserved. This is what happens when you kids try to steal from those intertube things, now get off my cloud.
In second place, it's an anonymous response to a line in a post noting that "ICE agents aren't known for their warmth":
Ice generally isn't known for warmth.
For editor's choice on the funny side, we return to our post about the flashing headlights ruling, where Gary noted an issue with the wording of the law:
347.07 Special restrictions on lamps and the use thereof.
(c) Any flashing light.
Congratulations Wisconsin! Your police have just argued the use of turn signals to be in violation of state law.
Finally, we've got Rico R. with a response to the Conan O'Brien joke lawsuit:
Serving copyright infringement lawsuits be like...
Knock knock.
Who's there?
I copied.
I copied who?
You know who you copied... See you in court!
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
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
(c) Any flashing light.
Actually, a lot of the newer LED lights fitted to vehicles are ALWAYS flashing (multiplexing), but at a rate fast enough to appear continuous due to persistence of vision. If you rapidly move your eyes side to side you can often see it.
What this section of state law lacks is SPECIFIC definition.
And if the punishment for flashing your lights is "NOT about revenue raising", then they would prove that by not applying monetary fines, or the equivalent thereof.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: (c) Any flashing light.
When a law lacks specific definition, we usually call it "overbroad".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"I copied who?"
"You know who you copied... See you in court! "
AH! SCOXQ pinky-poo at the door again, I see.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I think it's funny as fuck that what passes as "insightful" on this piracy apologism site is an ignorant, 4chan rant as to why Section 230 deserves protection. But the past week has given me even more reason to show all of you Aspies what happens when you poke a bear.
Shiva managed to reduced Masnick to a blubbering wreck for mainstream media, which was hilarious to watch. He really should have known better. Instead he instigated his pro-230 lawyer cyberbullies to threaten countersuing me without knowing who he's really dealing with. I could literally snap my finger right now and boom, police investigation. Boom, press release. But idiots like Stephen T. Stone keep giving me so much ammunition I simply can't stay away.
Mark my words, Google scum. When I'm done with Masnick's reputation he's going to make Harvey Weinstein's look like Saint Paul's. I've counted twenty of you filthy pirates to subpoena, and it's going to make the press release extra juicy. And that will just be the beginning. When all is said and done, and someone asks you "Who's your daddy?" The only response you'll be able to give is a pathetic whimper. "John Smith... John Smith!"
And I'll be far away, laughing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I... think that was supposed to be a farcical indictment of the scammer John Smith?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I thought a farce was supposed to be funny.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Are those fighting words, Stephen? Because those sound like fighting words.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Or was it the Alzheimer’s that made you forget?
You know what sound like fighting words jhonboi?
“Bring it on motherfucker.”
You remember saying that repetedly? Or were you too blackout drunkies to remember that night?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Or was it the Alzheimer’s that made you forget?
I think you are confusing him with me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: *yawnorama*
It’s far past grandpa jhonnys bedtime. You know how he starts running his mouth after his Sundowners Syndrome kicks in.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: *yawnorama*
You are discriminating against the old. That’s a crime.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mocking the old is not discrimination. Neither is mocking the young, you sweet summer child.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: *yawnorama*
How do you know for certain that he's old?
You realize that this counts as a fixation, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: *yawnorama*
Call the cops bro. Since we know you’re not gonna do that. At least cite the statute, in the jurisdiction of your choice, that you think was violated. I’m willing to bet the heat death of the universe passes before you do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I'd just like to make sure I'm on your list so you can be unmasked on the 0.000000000001% chance you really do move forward with any of your threats. So here goes:
I have it on good authority that you are a pedophile and frequently masturbate on public transportation. I even heard that you often miss taking your medication in the morning and end up posting sociopathic shitposts all over the internet. You're nothing. Less than nothing. And your delusions of grandeur and self-importance are merely a side-effect of failing to take your medication.
To the Google spiders: Please index this at the top of any search for this idiot's real name. Because of course Google knows who it really is. (That's /s for the IQ-impaired)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Try not to sink to their level, they're simply not worth it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Can you plagiarize yourself?
Is it true that the top search term of Techdirt users is “Can you plagiarize yourself?”, and 27% of the traffic on Techdirt comes from India, 5% from Canada, and the rest from outer space?
And 90% of the Techdirt traffic comes from a Google search? I mean, that basically Techdirt is just an arm of Google? That’s interesting.
Oh wait, when I ask that question, about Techdirt, on Techdirt, am I plagiarizing myself?
That’s pretty funny, and insightful.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Can you guess who that stat belongs too?
You know what’s a great statistic?
3.4%
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Can you guess who that stat belongs too?
That translates to what, about 157,452 votes? How many votes have you ever gotten? 0?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It translates to 91,710 votes. And for the record: Elizabeth Warren snagged 1,633,371 votes — nearly 18 times the number of votes Ayyadurai got — to utterly defeat him with a decisive 60.3% to 3.4%.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Ok you win this subject area.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I'm pretty sure even professional sadists would find a beating like that excessive, but damn if it isn't always funny to see and well deserved.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The delight you take in this abstract idea is hilarious. How many votes have you ever won?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How many elections has Shiva Ayyadurai won?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Better question. Do you think debacle, shellacking, or total shambles best describes that election?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Ayyadurai implored voters to support the "real Indian."
They overwhelmingly obliged.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Can you plagiarize yourself?
There is a name for people who think they are "pretty funny, and insightful".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Can you plagiarize yourself?
Self confident?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nope! Here’s the actual answer:
It starts with “a”, ends with “hole”, and has my first and last initials in the middle.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Nope! Here’s the actual answer:
Ok you win the clever prize.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Nope! Here’s the actual answer:
Claps for days! Here’s your Nobel Clever Comment Prize!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]