Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
from the so-sayeth dept
This week, our first place winner on the insightful side is wshuff with a response to the complaint that Sci-Hub has no incentive to ensure accuracy or ethical standards of research papers:
Oh, you mean like that time Elsevier published fake journals?
https://www.the-scientist.com/the-nutshell/elsevier-published-6-fake-journals-44160
In second place, it's Stephen T. Stone with a simple response to our post about how a lot of people who think they have problems with Section 230 actually have problems with the first amendment:
I have but one response to this article:
A-fuckin’-men! 🙏
For editor's choice on the insightful side, we start out with another simple comment on that article, this time from an anonymous commenter responding to someone who brought up the supposed free speech implications of "being denied access to a large audience":
The 1st amendment says nothing about being granted an audience!
Next, it's PaulT responding to a comment about the lack of unbiased "mass media" (labelled as "Fact #1"):
Fact #2: there in not any source of truly neutral, unbiased information anywhere. If you think that your favourite non-mass media source is completely unbiased, I'd check your wallet because you've been conned.
The trick is to understand the inherent biases in the sources you visit and temper them with sources with different biases, not to pretend you don't have the bias problem.
Over on the funny side, our first place winner is Thad with a response to our post about the interesting and valid question raised by Shiva Ayyadurai's lawsuit against a Massachusetts official, and specifically to the development that he is proceeding pro se:
Well, you know the old saying: anyone who represents Shiva Ayyadurai has a fool for a client.
In second place, it's an anonymous response to some fearmongering about all the bad that will happen under Biden/Harris:
Sure, Jan.
Just like Obama took all your guns, Hillary was locked up, Mexico paid for the wall, and you repealed and replaced Obamacare with my sooper dooper Trumpcare.
At some point, when you're that wrong, people start thinking you're full of shit.
For editor's choice on the funny side, we start out with an anonymous comment offering the only reasonable explanation for modern copyright law:
I think copyright is to encourage the author to continue creating new works even many years after their death.
Finally, we've got Khym Chanur in a thread started by a certain commenter who believes that anyone with a gap in their comment record is some sort of fake bot or sockpuppet — this time with someone who responded noting that "I don't comment often, although I read this site most everyday and normally find comments I would have made already made":
Pfft, real people don't let "I have nothing new to add to the discussion" stop them from cluttering up the conversation.
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
I resemble that remark!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
its a bot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I wanted to comment on that, but realized I had nothing more to contribute to the comment.
So instead I am commenting here about how I wanted to comment, but had nothing to contribute to the comment.
But now I'm having a serious crisis of conscience on whether this comment on commenting about how I wanted to comment yet having nothing to contribute to the comment is worthy of a comment.
HELP, I AM STUCK IN A COMMENT FACTORY.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It evokes the immortal Karl Valentin's words "everything has been said already, just not yet by everybody" (in the original German "Es ist schon alles gesagt, nur noch nicht von allen.").
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Or some of us just hide in the shadows posting anonymously until the accusations fly and then log in just to make their "it's a conspiracy" readings go right off the scale.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Explains
"I think copyright is to encourage the author to continue creating new works even many years after their death."
Explains the Silmarillion.
Then if anyone related to ACD(Doyle) could make MORE of the Sherlock Holmes story line, hey Should have dont it long ago.
Shakespeare? did he have any family?
Twain?
Dickens? his son did the same.
Orwell?
There are a few, but are they Bitching that they NEED the parents copyrights?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Explains
Copyright on original works does not matter for the creation of new works, which will have their own copyright. Also. copyright on unpublished works does not matter, as only whoever got the copy can publish it; and significant editing will gain a new copyright.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The true purpose of copyright
is to allow people to continue VOTING many years after their death, apparently.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The true purpose of copyright
Far too few make use of that opportunity to warrant an (inter-)nationally provided monopoly.
Apropos copyright: I'd sure wish that we got to see fewer repeats of the mass propaganda speeches at fascist rallies maybe 80 years ago, with minor substitutions like "Bolshevik" with "radical leftists" and "Jews" with "muslims".
But then copyright makes somewhat mindless choices just what to lock up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The true purpose of copyright
I’ve yet to see any evidence that there is a significant issue with people voting under the assumed identity of a dead citizen. I’ve asked, but no one will back this claim up. Will you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Of all the trolls' various insane conspiracy theories, "Mike Masnick has a bunch of accounts registered that he only posts from every few years, because reasons" is by far the most baffling. What would even be the point?
But when you understand the peculiar pathology of the resident trolls here, it starts to become clearer. I'm not talking about the occasional drive-by guys; I'm talking about the trolls who have been on this site longer than I have and spend more time here than I do.
Techdirt is their life. Posting here is all they do, hour after hour, day after day, even year after year. And they don't even like Techdirt!
Look at it from the perspective of someone with that peculiar pathology and it all starts to make sense. Of course somebody like that can't accept that someone might post to Techdirt and then just...stop. And then not do it again. For years.
No, of course that could never happen. Does not compute. Impossible. No, there's only one thing that could be happening here: Mike Masnick has a stable full of fake registered accounts, and he sporadically uses one of them to post with, to achieve...some...vaguely-defined nefarious purpose.
It's the only explanation that makes sense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: @"Thad": purpose of the ZOMBIES is inflate comment numbers,
thereby showing apparent support for Techdirt's loony leftist notions.
That's classic ASTRO-TURFING.
A huge drop in number of comments from 5 years ago is obvious: just click back to yesterday and pick ANY of the links.
Clearly, not one in a thousand alleged (Maz won't even state numbers anymore) readers comments here, VERY LOW "engagement" for claimed highly influential tech site.
Until next time, this is Zombie Hunter Toby Contin Yude saying: "to be continued".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: @"Thad": purpose of the ZOMBIES is inflate comment numbe
What would even be the point of that? What would they have to gain by “inflat[ing] comment numbers”?
Not seeing a huge drop, honestly. Also, nobody cares.
Again, so what? Also, I wouldn’t be surprised if a lot of other “influential” sites have similar engagement rates; most people don’t write comments on stuff they view online most of the time. And where are they claiming this site is “highly influential”?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
blue's pathology is clear from the early 2010s after three major incidents happened:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
it fun that the intest/internet...is up.
Its fun to see 1 and 2 and 4 side to what has happened.
Never has the truth been fron the Origin area..
GET A HINT
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"No, there's only one thing that could be happening here: Mike Masnick has a stable full of fake registered accounts, and he sporadically uses one of them to post with, to achieve...some...vaguely-defined nefarious purpose."
Yup. That particular troll - because we all know there's just that one unmistakable Baghdad Bob dropping his tells all over - has surely figured it out.
The New World Order is real, has full control over dozens of shady alphabet soup agencies in the seamier side of the intelligence business, governs all of the evil corporations, especially Big Tech, and uses all of those resources...to beat a single persistent forum troll over the head with his own piss-poor arguments.
What is truly baffling, to me, is how Baghdad Bob envisions Mike - or anyone, for that matter - paying all those astroturfers off, to astroturf against a troll whose arguments make it very clear he doesn't possess logic good enough to put his own underpants on. I guess that makes sense only if you start by not understanding what "money" is or where it comes from.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Well jeez, when you put it like that it just sounds like he has a serious mental illness. That kinda takes the fun out of making fun of him.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Eh. Speak for yourself. I've learned to live with myself for that decision.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"That kinda takes the fun out of making fun of him."
I used to think that as well. But, you know, he is functional enough to use a computer, deploy Tor and what appears to be some version of the angry kitten auto-troll kit, and can occasionally spell whole sentences correctly.
At some point you just have to assume that "high-functioning" or not there are just some NPF's which do not exculpate a person from being an absolutely horrible human being. He should have realized - or it should have been pointed out to him - that he needs help, and once that help was received, work on improving himself to the point where he could interact with people in any other way than just persistently doing his best to shit over forum threads through a keyboard.
My alternate theory was that he was an avid shitposting troll and nothing else, but honestly...ten years in a row? Sheesh. That's at the point where you have to quote Popehat's take on Poe about how someone pretending to be a donkeyfucker by fucking donkeys just ends up being a donkeyfucker.
That said it's not as if he needs any help making fun of himself. I've yet to see very many comments made by Baghdad Bob where he tries to fit a second argument in and that argument doesn't immediately take his first argument out back and shoots it in the neck.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Honestly, I think that troll spends more time here than I do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
That's because he heard that you pay people to write under a bunch of made-up names.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"Honestly, I think that troll spends more time here than I do."
Mike, I'm gonna go out on a limb here and hypothesize that you do, in fact, have a life outside of the online environment. I hear that's a popular thing for many people, myself included.
To Baghdad Bob it's been pretty clear, for some ten years plus change, that the idea there's other things to life than shitposting on a forum is so alien he can't conceive of it.
Hence his apparent current theory that Techdirt consists of you, him, and a bunch of sock puppets you get up in the middle of the night to drive just so you can gainsay him.
With the full backing of your CIA paymasters - because according to the New World Order Baghdad Bob is somehow a major threat.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yes, know you don't comment often, "PeterV"! That's my point.
A zombie of course uses one of Techdirt's standard tactics: paraphrase the key FACT as if answer. Sheesh. Tells nothing of WHY you pop out on one of the dullest days for off-topic worthless ad hom.
PeterV or Peter Voveris: 12 (1.5 per year), 37 mo gap; 43 mo gap; Mar 19th, 2012 https://www.techdirt.com/user/pvoveris
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How about 8.5 years? Isn't this "Brandon" beyond doubt ODD?
Same day that PeterV was swept away by urge to write, someone else (or so we're supposed to presume) who even more "doesn't comment often", broke HUGE GAP to make a third comment after two the day it began:
Brandon or spenoza: 3 (<0.4), EIGHT AND HALF YEAR GAP; May 3rd, 2012 https://www.techdirt.com/user/marurun
"Brandon" didn't respond to my poke, still only 3 comments.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
To hypothetical new readers: those two aren't the only ODD.
The significance of LONG GAPS must be judged by the full list: about 80 "accounts" average three per year or less; about 36 average ONE per year or less! And like these, go back ten or twelve years!
Of course the fanboys say that gathering incontestable data proves only that I'm crazy.
By the way, I reserve that list in hopes that some fanboy will dare me to produce it: then I'll goad them into some commitment. -- It's only a slight hope because they KNOW that I've been pointing up zombies since 2017!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: To hypothetical new readers: those two aren't the only ODD.
Yes, because that data proves absolutely nothing, yet you claim it as evidence for something! If I was to collect equally incontestable data about how many Facebook users were born on a Monday and claim that was suspicious, people would call me crazy, too. Such data would be just as useful as yours.
No one will ever do so because that list won’t prove anything suspicious or noteworthy, and nobody cares. It’s trivia at best.
And what sort of “commitment” would you “goad them into”? What good would it do?
Also, anyone can look up most of the information you’re referring to, so you don’t have any real leverage with that list. It’s just that, again, no one else cares! Many of us are still perplexed about why you do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The current RECORD ZOMBIE has 12 YEAR 1 MONTH GAP!
D or Devang: 26 (<2), 3 Jan 2006 https://www.techdirt.com/user/cleanup_crew
"D" also didn't respond to a poke.
And close behind, 11 YEAR 10 MONTH GAP:
JGracey or Gracey: 4, (<0.3), Jul 6th, 2007 https://www.techdirt.com/user/jgraceystinson
"JGracey" made a 4th months later, but didn't respond to query.
The zombies don't answer because ANY gives evidence: even "PeterV" does by admits feels compelled to respond, then giving NO actual reason.
So that's about equally helpful to me as the other 3 (and dozens more) NOT responding!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The current RECORD ZOMBIE has 12 YEAR 1 MONTH GAP!
Again, nobody cares. Also, PeterV gave a perfectly good reason. That you don’t believe it is not his problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Techdirt at long last defends its ZOMBIES.
I'm not going to get more from Techdirt, but the fun of my position in this area as all else, based in Truth and Fact, is that NO MATTER WHAT you kids do: evade, continue, or stop this obvious astro-turfing, I WIN.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You have some kind of mental health issue, and I urge you to seek help for it before you inflict a more physical form of self-harm upon yourself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Speak for yourself, Stephen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Techdirt at long last defends its ZOMBIES.
Trump, is that you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Techdirt at long last defends its ZOMBIES.
"I WIN."
...he said, after building a strawman, setting it on fire with a false assumption, and beating it down with a red herring. As impressive as a child tearing down the house of cards they built themselves and declaring themselves new king of the hill.
Meanwhile I note that every last one of your comments still gains the massive scorn of the community and you STILL can't post your drivel anywhere which demands an actual account because you get banned so fast for being a belligerent asswipe.
But hey, by all means shout your..."Win"...from the rooftops. I hope that means it's time for you to finally declare you're about to go away forever again?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Techdirt at long last defends its ZOMBIES.
And this is why conspiracy theories prosper. No matter what facts or evidence is explained by people just... well, being people, the conspiracy theorist will see a much more devious meaning behind it and will also move the goalposts as necessary to keep the conspiracy alive.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Techdirt at long last defends its ZOMBIES.
Bigly!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
AOC is now making a list of Republican traitors.
I suggest we put out_of_the_blue on top of ours.
Black Lives Matter! Defund the police!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The art of wraparound
Just when does over-the-top impersonation become beneath-rock-bottom impersonation?
Actually, is there a term for "impersonation" when it is not a person but a stereotype that is being projected?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Strawman.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: AOC is now making a list of Republican traitors.
I find it very telling that AOC's comments (about not sweeping the misdeeds of Trump's administration and enablers under the rug, but trying to make sure we remember and hold them accountable) are twisted. Its almost as if the desire for retribution rather than justice, unaccountability of the rich/powerful rather than equality under the law is something they think all Democrats are interested in.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: AOC is now making a list of Republican traitors.
"I find it very telling that AOC's comments (about not sweeping the misdeeds of Trump's administration and enablers under the rug, but trying to make sure we remember and hold them accountable) are twisted."
Yes and no. It's a fact that the biggest contributor to Trump getting to power in the first place is because one side in this conflict is persistently vindictive while the other side keeps letting the narrative slide by always trying to broker peace. The democrats never draw a line in sand. They take one step back and gesture for reconciliation. Leading to them backing halfway off the brink of the abyss by now.
This election showed everyone that almost 50% of the voting US citizenry does not consider naked racism and bigotry, misogyny, fascism, betrayal of long-standing allies and an utter lack of good faith to be dealbreakers. That's a whopping one in three americans being outright assholes.
And the reason there's so damn many of them is because they do believe in retaliation whereas you don't. Every time you turn the other cheek they load up another punch. You try to debate people who think - and are thus correct - that it's a vicious bar fight featuring broken bottles and pool cues.
This isn't the time for rational and civil discourse. Hasn't been for a long time. It's way past time for you to find a sharp rock, beat the vicious rabid dog until it stays down, and THEN try to see if it can be taught to reason.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]