Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
from the say-something dept
This week, our first place winner on the insightful side is Rocky, who provided some details on why game developers take issue with key reseller G2A:
And just to expand upon the term fraudulent in this context with an example:
Someone buys a Steam-key with a stolen credit-card, sells the key to G2A, some gamer buys the key and starts playing the game. Later the owner of the credit-card discovers the fraudulent transaction and reverses the charge. Now comes the problem, who should take the cost of the fraudulent transaction? The gamer, Steam or the developer?
In reality the total cost of the fraudulent transaction is usually passed onto the developer by Steam so the gamer who bought the key in good faith can keep playing, and that's why some indie developers thinks it's better for people to rather pirate the game instead of buying keys from re-sellers, since the latter actually can costs them money PLUS a lost sale, ie for each fraudulent transaction they need to sell 2 more keys to make up for it.
In second place, we've got Thad with a response to Lindsay Graham's technological illiteracy that also serves as a good general demand:
Bring back the Office of Technology Assessment.
For editor's choice on the insightful side, we start out with an anonymous commenter who thanked our first place winner and others for their explanation of the G2A situation:
Thank you to everyone above who explained the fraudulent practice side of things. I can imagine that is probably a bulk problem. Otherwise i am left thinking that game companies are just still whining about the First Sale Doctrine, with occasional fraud, and oh-my-god-no someone resold a key we gave away. (Gee sorry someone less influence-y is playing your game, asshats.)
The issue here, when fraud is involved at scale, yeah that is a legit complaint.
I will certainly think twice about buying from a reseller, but what about genuine resales without ethical or legal baggage?
Next, we've got a comment from PaulT in response to someone defending the secret Facebook group for CBP agents:
"Just because they work for CBP doesn't stop them from being human."
Also, crossing the border, sometimes in a perfectly legal attempt to apply for asylum does not make one less than human. Yet, here we are with concerns about the way that the people in these groups are treating them anyway.
"Its also been proved that PTSD and an incredibly dark sense of humor are related."
So, we shouldn't be concerned about people having severe bigotry issues against people they have control over because they might have been severely psychologically damaged before they took the job? That sounds backwards to me.
I agree that caution should be taken, but those really aren't convincing reasons.
Over on the funny side, our first place winner is Thad explaining how Gavin McInnes won him over by pointing out a slightly incorrect assertion by SPLC:
Ah. Well there you have it: Gavin McInnes is definitely not a white supremacist, because he didn't use racial slurs on Fox News or VDARE, he used them in Taki's Magazine.
In second place, it's an anonymous commenter who couldn't resist a quick lil' vegan joke:
I hear they’re now selling beef milk, which is like almond milk that’s pushed through tiny holes in cows.
For editor's choice on the funny side, we start out with an anonymous commenter responding to questions about the legitimacy of Laura Loomer's lawyer:
I'm sure there's a bar, somewhere that gives a damn... but they probably serve alcohol
And finally, it's Toom1275 with a metric for the blog:
The veracity of Techdirt's reporting is directly proportional to the number of trollskis whining about it in the comments.
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
Let's look at the figgers and laugh, "Toom1275"...
First, fanboys are as usual arrogantly and laughably assuming that the couple dozen of you represent millons. -- This weekly "Mutual Admiration Society" is actually HUGE evidence against Techdirt's significance, silly. No other site I've ever seen has or needs such blatant re-assuring of its FEW followers!
Now, FIGGERS: The Maz claimed 1.55e6 month of Feb to the 27 = 57,407 per day (ambiguous whether unique visitors per month: based on that only the usual couple dozen comment, I suspect is slyly substituting "page views".)
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160225/16380133714/techdirt-needs-your-help-to-fig ht-encryption-fearmongering.shtml#c608
That seems the most recent figgers; there's a reason why he's quit stating them: Techdirt is a TINY and shrinking site.
Being generous on the uniques/views question and using those OLD figgers: at 57,407 readers and 7 pieces each day, averages 8,201 for any given piece; therefore FAR less than 1% of readers comment at all. Not much "engagement" for a site that you deem influential.
Then, much less than a tenth of commenters, 1 in a thousand, could at the outside be deemed by even you as "trolls". Since you choose to use that word, then you cannot regard them as serious commenters, only here to disrupt.
The inevitable conclusion is that Techdirt is LUCKY to get two or three per piece HOOTING its silly notions. I agree that's accurate measure of its influence. Anyone serious can't be bothered.
It's topped off by putting YOUR CHILDISHNESS on front page calling people "trolls" -- a term which isn't allowed on good sites, I'd better inform you -- simply BAD. BUSINESS. PRACTICE.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Let's look at the figgers and laugh, "Toom1275"...
Thanks for helping me explore how I feel about the chance to flag spam/trolling as such.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Let's look at the figgers and laugh, "Toom1275"
Just remember my rule of thumb. Libtard actually refers to Libertarians, not Liberals. Because anyone who worships the welfare queen who is responsible for the spread of Libertarionism needs remedial education.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Your obsession with this site only makes us stronger.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Let's look at the figgers and laugh, "Toom1275"...
I will stop using troll when you stop using pirate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Let's look at the blue balls and laugh, and laugh
Sup coward. Why did you run away when we started asking questions?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Let's all point and laugh at the idiot manchild
“It's topped off by putting YOUR CHILDISHNESS on front page..”
No one even mentioned your dumb ass in this weeks roundup bro.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Let's look at the figgers and laugh, "Toom1275"...
sliding visitor numbers.
Remember, Techdirt is not a water-based theme park. You can thcweam and thcweam about being "censored" here, but you are of course free to setup your own blog eviscerating Techdirt somewhere else. And, as always, please include a citation.
Also, The veracity of Techdirt's reporting is directly proportional to the number of trollskis whining about it in the comments.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"Good" sites regularly filter for trolls and use that exact word, so my guess is that using the term triggers you because "copyright trolls" is now kosher legal language, thanks to your heroes of copyright enforcement.
out_of_the_blue just hates it when due process is enforced.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That's a whole lot of nothing just to wail on a site you consider insignificant.
But did anyone really expect anything different from a knuckledragger who hates it when due process is enforced?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Obvious to anyone but you really
And yet you’ve posted here hundreds of thousands of times. So who is more the fool bro?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I propose a change to Toom's metric. It's not how many trollskis, but rather how loud and ranty they get about it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You'd have to factor in blue boy as the anomaly, mind you. He'll rant on any thread regardless of relevance.
Jhon Smith is a bit of a hit and miss at times, even on Section 230 articles.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Lost in Translation
http://we_dont_want_your_spam_here.com
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Lost in Translation
Spam is legal speech - it's a violation of Cabbage Law to block it!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Lost in Translation
I'm pretty sure you are mistaken and it's Cole's Law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Lost in Translation
Most sites get sour grapes.
We get sauerkraut.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Lost in Translation
I dunno. We also get a lot of wineing from blue & co.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Lost in Translation
And wieners.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Lost in Translation
It’s pretty much a sausage fest no matter how you look at it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Lost in Translation
Spam is at least more honest than anything blue generates, I'll give it that much.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]