Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
from the eavesdropping dept
This week, both our winners on the insightful side come in response to our post about Twitter banning the Krassensteins, despite the ongoing accusations of anti-conservative bias at the platform. In first place, it's Stephen T. Stone responding to an old, tired, incoherent argument that banning people violates "common law":
Maybe you can answer this question for once.
Let’s say Twitter admins announce tomorrow that Twitter will no longer host a specific type of content. The content is legal and people can post that content anywhere else. But Twitter admins say “we don’t do that here” and ban that content from Twitter anyway.
What law, statute, or “common law” court precedent says Twitter must host content its admins don’t want to host?
(Spoiler: they did not "answer this question for once".)
In second place, we've got an anonymous comment pretty well summing up the situation:
It's a bad time to be a popular internet platform.
You're damned if you moderate any accounts ("censorship").
You're damned if you don't moderate accounts.
You're damned if you fail to moderate the correct accounts according to diametrically opposed opinions.You're just all-around damned.
For editor's choice on the insightful side, we start out with a comment from any moose cow word in response to China's latest move to use America's IP obsession against it:
If IP was truly as invaluable as companies claim, they'd keep their manufacturing close to home where they can maintain the upmost control over it. Instead, they keep sending it to lowest bid manufacturers in countries that don't care about their IP. They want cheap labor and tight IP control, but they can't have their cake and eat it too. After decades of offshoring, it's clear that they value cheap labor FAR more than their IP. Apparently it's worth less to them than the paper a sweatshop laborer's pay stub is printed on.
In second place, we've got a simple anonymous response to the German politician seeking to take action after a bunch of YouTubers told their fans not to vote for her party:
Would she have been as upset if someone saying vote for her party gained as many views on YouTube?
Over on the funny side, our first place winner is another anonymous response to the post about China:
China is stealing our ideas..
..about how to use the fake idea of "intellectual property". Something must be done!
In second place it's yet another anonymous commenter, this time on our post about the long copyright saga of Bittersweet Symphony and Richard Ashcroft, responding to a commenter who was "surprised they didn't buy Ashcroft a dog and shoot it too":
I think the police hold the copyright on that one...
For editor's choice on the funny side, we've got a quick exchange from the post about the latest Twitter bans. First, Stephen T. Stone got somewhat confused:
Huh.
This reads like Twitter moderates activity and not political beliefs. But that can’t be right. Alex Jones said he was targeted for his political beliefs. If we can’t believe him, who can we believe~?
But an anonymous commenter replied and cleared everything up nicely:
It proves his master plan is working. His agents have replaced the chemical in the airplane fumes from the one made with babies to one made with barbecue, so the frogs that Twitter moderators eat at dinnertime are no longer gay.
It's the only logical explanation for this.
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
Of course they didn’t answer my question.
It would be nigh-impossible for them to answer it with anything but “there isn’t one”. 😁
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not quite
It would be nigh-impossible for them to honestly answer it with anything but 'there isn't one', but given the individual in question that would hardly be an impediment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not quite
I believe the answer he gave once was "Cabbage Law" contains laws so important that no one has written them down. Seriously.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Not quite
As utterly insane and wrong as that would be... yeah, that sounds entirely believable as something they would say.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Of course they didn’t answer my question.
I would call it discrimination.
No LGBTQ+2 people allowed. Sounds like discrimination. That or they want a private club, which is fine, just call it private.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Let me re-word the answer for you
No pro-LGBTQ+2 speech allowed.
"The content is legal and people can post that content anywhere else. But Twitter admins say “we don’t do that here” and ban that content from Twitter anyway."
IANAL. I would call it discrimination. What would you call it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Let me re-word the answer for you
I am not an American.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_anti-discrimination_acts#_United_States
Judging from the length of the list, I would say discrimination, for any reason, is frowned upon and any reason not already explicitly listed, soon will be.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Of course, you haven't answered my question.
How old do you have to be to be able to determine which gender, if any, you are? Legally responsible drinking age? 😁
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
freedom of speach
Its interesting..
That the Corp idea that Everyone has to have their product, or they are loosing money..
Is the Same as idiots declaring They are being censored because 1 SMART person isnt listening to them.
the resource is there, the options are there...But do we see or find any of them?? not really.
Why? BECAUSE THEY DONT DO WHAT THE VOTERS WANT..
They petition the rich and the corps, and forget about us, because WE DONT have the money.. They Arnt speaking to us. And thats the reason we dont See them saying anything, SMART..
they arnt Politicians...they are Capitalist, and other things I cant say in public.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They aren't strictly capitalists, they are much worse. They are Randians. Morons who worship Ayn Rand.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just been rereading Popehat's "Anatomy of a Scam Investigation" and now many of the tricks in the scammer's toolkit seem pretty familiar:
sociopathy
never delivering on things asked of them, distracting and changing the subject when pressed
when called out too hard, pretending to be someone else
Stalking of and threats to take spurious legal action...
...against individuals and blogs that write or host truthful warnings against the scammer
make spurious takedown requests to review sites that victims report the scammer to
using bought-and-sold mailing lists of scam victims
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Did we expect anything less from John Herrick Smith, aka horse with no name/MyNameHere/Whatever/Just Sayin', glorious defender of the downtrodden Prenda Law?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Well the "spurious takedown requests" have spread into unintended territory (i.e., not someone called a scammer) given one documented instance of it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
We get it, you think Ken and Mike married above or underneath their station and also found some copyright enforcers who were being very naughty, and that rustles your jimmies.
You going to shitpost on this thread to 300 replies again, Herrick? Please say yes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Awww you're the one ruffled.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Guess we're taking that as a yes...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I assume the author of that piece (and those with whom he associates) more than welcome criticism anywhere on the internet.
Good to know.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
We already know you don't allow criticism whatsoever.
Tough. You're going to get it anyway.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Looking at Techdirt's History post for the week, I strongly suspect Jhon boi to be Michael L. Slonecker, the pro-RIAA lawyer who tutted his tongue at everything posted on the site until he learned that leaving his real name so people could mock him was a very bad idea.
[https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090527/1836105038.shtml](Here Slonecker mocks the EFF for trying to counter RIAA propaganda.) He then loses it when his wife is briefly mentioned in passing.
Funny how a decade later he's reduced to stalking Masnick's wife instead.
These copyright-types were always another level of fucked up...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I would... doubt that very much for a variety of reasons. As much trouble as he made on the site for a long time, he always seemed somewhat grounded in (a slightly confused, and old fashioned) reality (that one thread you link to is a bit of an exception). Also, he had a fairly distinct style, one I still see showing up in the comments from time to time that does not match the troll you are talking about in any way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
For what it's worth, here you see Slonecker and John Smith, posting as horse with no name, using different geolocation snowflakes.
One might argue that it's not the first time Herrick has masked his IP address by posting from his phone, but Mike's right. There's enough differences between the two.
Then again, it's some achievement when you're insane enough to make Slonecker look grounded. For a laugh, look up "Slonecker" in the comments on Techdirt over the years. Comedy gold.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I am not the individual you think I am.
That individual did not make the posts you attribute to me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Which would have been a reasonable point to make, up until you posted this gem:
If you aren't that individual... how would you know that individual didn't make those posts?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I'm not who I'm accused of being, but will make sure to let him know about this post.
Your wife isn't being stalked, but you already know that.
It seems I'm being censored on this site so I'll have to table this until I go public with a lawyer in tow. Funny thing happens when one has a lawyer, people just stop bullying them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Ah, now I'm not being censored again. I wish Techdirt would make up its mind.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You? Go public?
Don't make me fucking laugh.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Except for this little tidbit you posted here:
Unless you're going to gripe about getting fakeposted again after switching to another IP address.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You aren't censored.
You are free to make your "argument" since nothing here stops you from doing that but that doesn't mean you can force others to see it who aren't interested in it.
Funny how some people conflates free speech with the non-existing right to be heard no matter what, unless the speech has some relevance to Article 12 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child but I doubt we are talking about children even though some people behave like an entitled child with poor impulse control.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You go Jhon boi! Let Slonecker know that he was compared to a rich content creator making amazing things for Hollywood, that'll piss him off!
...Wait, how was this plan of yours supposed to work again? Never mind. Everybody knows you've been threatening subpoenas on this site for a year and could have Masnick's ass on a platter if you snapped your finger, and the amount of shit that has actually gone down in that time has ranged between jack and fuck all.
To borrow a phrase from another Anonymous Coward, "Bring it on, you old, impotent fuckwit".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: stay limp my friend.
I don’t get quoted often. But when I do, it’s making fun of the most impotent man in the world.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Just like the last 700 times you said it.
Any day now. Any day now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I am not that individual, and what you are saying about that individual is clearly false. Since you dragged that individual into this for no valid reason other than you WANTING to believe it was him, you seem to be the one fixated.
I am not stalking Masnick's wife at all. I was "saying mean things" like everyone here likes to defend the right to do so. In this case, I believe the mean things are accurate because someone who is married to someone who allows bullying through his comments section is someone I'm not going to like.
You might want to check the legal definition of stalking. Ironicially, that definition has been met a great deal more by some individuals who have frequented this site.
I did notice some parallel construction here by someone looking to dance around a certain privacy law but I'm not sure that would hold water.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Keep posting fighting words, Herrick.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You're the only one posting those.
\
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Said the guy who calls his hated idol's girls "shit stains".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Let me get this straight, you think Mike's wife is a bad person because Mike doesn't moderate people who say "mean things" about others in this comment section which you yourself use to say "mean things" about others and in this specific instance Mike's wife.
Perhaps if you think it's such a bad thing you shouldn't contribute to it then, because your statement just shows us how hypocritical you really are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Not really your business.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
If you sit in the peanut gallery, expect peanut gallery comments...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Expect a subpoena, not-my-business-man.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Expect my subpoena
You threaten to rape anyone today Jhon boi?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
This just might be the dumbest post ever, anywhere, in the history of posting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Ummm... You might want to do the same, as I somehow believe that stalking requires actual knowledge of the person that is being stalked. Since you are always an AC, how can it be considered that anybody here is stalking you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"I keep voluntarily coming to where everyone else already is" is certainly an odd way to redefine "stalking."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Never mind that the post getting responded to doesn't mention stalking at all, just suggests Herrick might be another idiot. But Herrick just to have his nerve hit and testify like a jilted ex-lover.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Damned If They Moderate, Damned If They Don’t?
I don’t see why we need to feel sympathy for powerful, faceless megacorporations. They choose to be in this business, they should be adult enough to face the consequences. Nobody is holding a gun to their heads.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
'Look, if there's no gun involved what's the problem?'
Oh, I dunno, maybe because millions of people use the platforms those 'faceless megacorporations' own, and with the various pressures put on them to moderate/not moderate those same millions are right in the crossfire of whichever way the company chooses?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Damned If They Moderate, Damned If They Don’t?
Because they're not actually doing anything wrong, at least with regard to moderation. They're both crucified and venerated for the same activity which has, by outside forces, been politicized and made a partisan issue, amplifying the effect. The companies themselves are still doing what they've always done and have always had the right to do, and rightfully so.
First they came for the social media platforms...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Damned If They Moderate, Damned If They Don’t?
It doesn't just apply to Facebook-sized platforms, though. Any online community, of any size, has a moderation dilemma; no matter what you do, some people will be unhappy with your moderation decisions; some will say you over-moderate, others will say you under-moderate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Any online community, of any size
That’s where the difference comes in: those smaller online communities do not dominate the market the way Facebook does. Or, to put it another way, the personal cost of deleting your Facebook account is much greater than, say, your Myspace one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
MyNameHere/horse with no name/John Smith just hates it when due process is enforced.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And everyone else just hates it when you keep posting this stupidity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Speak for yourself.
More reminders of how Herrick is an idiot, please.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Damned if they do, damned if they don't?
I see that you're all still mocking conservatives for being upset about censorship.
I mean, if you're all okay with corporations deciding who does and who doesn't get to speak online, that's fine.
Just know that data proves that censorship IS going against conservatives. In 22-25 high profile censorship cases on Facebook, all but one were on the right.
Perhaps you guys should watch Tim Pool? Timcast or Tim Pool, he has two channels on Youtube. He talks about this stuff constantly.
In fact!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Hbf-cIq824
AND he even mentions "I do not want to live under the heel of mega corporations who aren't loyal to this country"
And just so you know, he's NOT a conservative.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: okay with corporations deciding
I thought it was the Conservatives who were friends of the BigCorps, and the Liberals who were in favour of Government reining them in.
Or are you a RINO?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Damned if they do, damned if they don't?
Whatever. As long as "conservative" means "hate freak" they'll keep getting moderated to conform to community norms.
Conservative here, never been censored.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Damned if they do, damned if they don't?
The sad thing, many of these "conservatives" bleeting about liberal bias and censorship has moved the goal-post so far afield that "old style conservatives" are being decried as being liberal left-wingers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Damned if they do, damned if they don't?
Shiva Ayyadurai still didn't invent email, Hamilton.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
For fuck's sake, Jhon. We've barely even scraped a hundred comments. Where's the subpoenas? Where's the rape threats? This is fucking weaksauce coming from you, boi.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If you sit in the peanut gallery, expect peanut gallery comments...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]