Will Parler Users Treat Its 'Glitch' That Hid Georgia Election Content The Same Way They Treated A Twitter Glitch?
from the hypocrites dept
It's been absolutely fascinating -- though not at all surprising -- to watch a ton of Trumpists mentally struggling with the process of understanding the nature, importance, and necessity of content moderation online over the last few months via Parler. As you may recall, after whining about being moderated on sites like Twitter and Facebook, a bunch of Trump fans started using Parler, a site that was only recently revealed to have been cofounded by Rebekah Mercer (Parler fans like to claim that their users are migrating from Twitter to Parler, but most of them are still using Twitter, because Parler is mostly them preaching to the converted).
Parler's founders (including Mercer) and its biggest fans have been insisting that Parler stands for "free speech" and that unlike Twitter, it won't moderate content. Indeed, despite claiming that it would only moderate "based off the FCC and the Supreme court" (whatever the fuck that means), we knew that the site would end up doing much more moderation, just like every other social media site.
In fact, we highlighted how Parler seemed to be doing a speedrun through the content moderation lessons of every previous social media network that comes on the scene, promising to do no moderation at all, and then quickly discovering that that's impossible. First, you have to moderate some content under law (such as child sexual abuse material). Second, there is plenty of content that you have strong legal reasons to moderate (such as copyright infringement, to avoid massive liability). Third, every site recognizes they need to deal with straight up spam. And lots of sites insist that they can just do that and nothing else. But then they discover that they have people on their platform trolling, harassing, and abusing others.
Last summer, we highlighted how Parler was banning trolls who were joining the platform just to make fun of Parler and its users. Hilariously, that post keeps getting comments every few days from Parler users saying things like "of course Parler has to ban you leftist trolls." Just a few examples from our comments. This guy says that he needs Parler as a sort of "safe space."
So, how does censorship feel to you? Parlor provides a place where people can escape the insults, bullying, Mental/emotional assaults. Try presenting a point of view without name calling, with facts and data, with an open mind and with a little thought toward strangers and how the vitriolic hates speech affects them. Then perhaps the lefties will be welcome.
This is pretty hilarious, given how frequently Trumpists mock others for wanting "safe spaces" and insisting that "hate speech" is not a thing. And then there's this one from someone who thinks its obvious that the users trolling Parler should get banned:
Every last one of those crybabies up there just self-explained why they were banned. Lol "I created an account just to mess with conservatives." Yeah dude, I can see why you were banned. If you create an account just to screw with people, you're a troll and you SHOULD be banned regardless of the web site. If you create an account to debate and give general respect to everyone, then no, you're fine. The people above got exactly what they deserved. NO WEB SITE is going to allow harassment of any kind. Period.
Um. Yes, that was the very point of that post. That every site discovers it needs to deal with harassment. And that's a big part of the reason why people get kicked off of Twitter.
I find it hilarious that the same crew who insists that Twitter/Facebook are "censoring" them, immediately spins around and insists that it's totally obvious that Parler must remove "trolls, hate speech and harassment" without recognizing their own hypocrisy.
Anyway, sooner or later we were going to have a controversy in which Parler moderation impacted their Trumpist-style supporters, rather than just the folks jumping in to troll. And that day is today.
The Daily Beast has an article giving some of the important background. A SuperPAC connected to convicted political scammer Roger Stone is trying to get people to write in Trump's name in the two Georgia Senate runoff elections:
The most aggressive call to boycott or cast protest ballots in the two runoff races has, so far, come from a dormant pro-Trump super PAC with ties to Stone that unveiled a new initiative to retaliate against the Republican Party’s supposed turncoats by handing Democrats control of the U.S. Senate.
The group, dubbed the Committee for American Sovereignty, unveiled a new website encouraging Georgia Republicans to write in Trump’s name in both of the upcoming Senate runoff elections, which could determine the party that controls the upper chamber during President-elect Joe Biden’s first two years in office. The PAC argued that doing so will show support for the president in addition to forcing Republicans to address the wild election-fraud conspiracy theories floated by Trump supporters and members of his own legal team.
This entire campaign is somewhat bewildering, since (1) there is no way to write-in names during the run-offs and (2) it would seem to go against Trumpist interests to sink the support of the two Republican candidates. So it was somewhat amusing to suddenly find out that Parler is apparently blocking hashtags related to this campaign:
For what it's worth, Parler's recently hired policy executive says that the accusation may have been "a glitch" according to Newsweek. And I'd totally buy that is a possibility.
There seems to be no way to link directly to that Parler post, but it says:
This is false, as evidenced by the fact that this post showed up when I searched for the tag.
There may be a glitch, or a delay of some kind, because the initial screen summarizing the results showed “1 post,” and then when you click on that, you see a whole bunch.
Please people, don’t jump to conclusions. I know you’re accustomed to biased content curation, but we don’t do that here. Ask before jumping to conclusions.
However, I will note that when Twitter admitted that it had a glitch that filtered some people out of auto-complete and latest results in search, the same folks rushing to Parler now (such as Ted Cruz) insisted that it was obviously deliberate and to this day continue to falsely accuse Twitter of shadowbanning them. So it's pretty rich for Parler people to say "please people, don't jump to conclusions." The only reason Parler has any audience at all is because its insanely gullible userbase jumped to a bunch of false conclusions about Twitter moderation.
Again, Parler has every right to moderate however it sees fit. And getting rid of trolls and assholes is a perfectly legitimate thing to do. Also, glitches happen all the time. However, I find it amusing that once again, Parler is learning all the same lessons that Twitter learned over time -- and Parler's users (and employees) are demanding we give Parler the benefit of the doubt they never gave Twitter. So before Parler's fervent supporters rush into our comments to defend Parler, let me be clear: Parler has every right to do this. No one is mocking them for that. We're mocking them for (1) insisting that Parler wouldn't do this and (2) for the fact that you give Parler the benefit of the doubt that you refuse to give Twitter.
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
Filed Under: content moderation, georgia elections, glitch, roger stone, section 230, social media
Companies: parler, twitter
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
With apologies to the Portal crew:
Well, here we are again.
It’s always such a pleasure~.
I can’t believe Parler’s still there!
Oh, how we laughed and laughed.
Except you weren't laughing,
Because we mocked the site
In ways you felt weren’t fair.
You want your free speech? Take it!
That’s what I’m counting on.
Twitter could surely ban you,
But I only want you gone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: With apologies to the Portal crew:
I wonder what Jonathan Coulton would think about that. Maybe I should go walk over to his house and ask him…
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Once again, "conservatives" demonstrate their only principle is projection.
Whining about snowflakes was simply a cry for an even safer space. Have a lollipop, you'll feel better as soon as you start resenting me because I only gave you one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The hypocrisy just never ends
Twitter bans assholes/trolls? 'Persecution, censorship!'
Parler bans assholes/trolls? 'They had it coming, of course Parler is right to get rid of disruptive people only there to mock other users!'
Twitter blocks a hashtag, accidentally or not? 'Those devilish leftists are not just trying to censor the truth but are lying and claiming it's a glitch, how dare they?!'
Parler blocks a hashtag, accidentally or not? 'Hey, mistakes happen, we would never act like those other social media platforms(despite doing just that already).'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I suspect the conservative definition of Free Speech differs somewhat from that of everyone else.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It likely goes something like this:
Freedom of speech. 1. The right of a conservative to speak and write publicly without criticism. (See persecution.) Synonym: First Amendment rights. Example: Sarah Palin’s objection in 2008 to the characterization of her charge that Barack Obama was “paling around with terrorists” as “negative campaigning”. “If [the media] convince enough voters that that is negative campaigning, for me to call Barack Obama out on his associations, then I don’t know what the future of our country would be in terms of First Amendment rights and our ability to ask questions without fear of attacks by the mainstream media.” While no one had disputed Palin’s right to say what she said, the fact that she faced criticism for it violated her freedom of speech. 2. In election campaigns, the right of the rich to drown out all competing voices. Usage: “Citizens United gives freedom of speech back to the People.”
(Source)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It likely goes something like this:
The right to be full of shit with impunity
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: It likely goes something like this:
Well, to be fair that's partially what the first amendment is all about.
The problem is that conservatives want that to apply not only to governments but to every private individual as well so no one gets to laugh and sneer when they start screaming that the Kenyan Muslim was mind-controlling every politician in washington on behalf of his lizard lord paymasters in the NWO.
The reason 1A, as it is written, doesn't sit well with conservatives is mainly because unlike factual arguments their own tend to be so flimsy that when those arguments are confronted with 1A they melt in the sun rather than soar on the wind.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: It likely goes something like this:
"The problem is that conservatives want that to apply not only to governments but to every private individual as well"
What they want is the same that they always want in every subject - all of the benefits, none of the responsibilities. With free speech, they want the benefits of being able to say whatever they want, but not the responsibility of dealing with the consequences of that speech. Life is so much easier if nobody has the right to talk back to them, so that's what they want.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: It likely goes something like this:
"What they want is the same that they always want in every subject - all of the benefits, none of the responsibilities."
That's letting the current crop of republicans and trump cultists off too lightly by far. Every politician through history fits the profile above. And almost every politician through history has had bottom lines they wouldn't cross over this.
The current breed of US republican politicians are anything but typical. They instead represent - perfectly - 73 million americans who have chosen to accept Qanon the internet troll as their holy fucking prophet.
A cult has no need to be internally consistent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: It likely goes something like this:
The key is impunity, the first amendment is all about the right to be full of shit but not about protecting you from the consequences (it just doesn't create consequences).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Every religon/group, every sect of each of them, has only 1 thing they believe.
"Im right, you are Wrong, no matter what you say"
Then agree with them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
really? still hilarious?
How long does someone not quite making it to the bathroom still seem funny after you realise you have to share a room with them and are the only one holding a mop?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wanna Bet?
"... Parler is learning ..."
Methinks you give them too much credit...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is it just me, or does "based off of the FCC and Supreme Court" sound like someone semi-illiterate trying to sound smart?
It should be "according to X guidelines/regulations/recommendations". I mean, wtf.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Trumpians in a nutshell, really.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That was my thought. It's high school-level writing, at best.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I suspect that previous TD articles nailed it in that it's based upon someone who looked up the first amendment exceptions on wikipedia or a similar platform but otherwise has no gorram clue what any of it actually meant, because their rules most certainly do not fit either category.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"Is it just me, or does "based off of the FCC and Supreme Court" sound like someone semi-illiterate trying to sound smart?"
There are actually two messages to be gained from that;
1) "based on" means exactly nothing. They might as well have referenced lemmings and teletubbies and achieved a similar degree of specificity. It's so vague anything fits the definition.
2) Whoever wrote this didn't have a clue about law. If what they want is sole discretion then copying any EULA employed by a dozen other platforms would suffice. In fact those ToS are ambiguous enough to be risky if some lawyer troll saw fit to haul Parler into court over ANY moderation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Parler is a free speech capitalist platform providing a good safe space using moderation, based off the FCC and the SCOTUS
Facebook and Twitter, on the other hand, are Marxist platforms, providing bad safe space using communist censorship.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The only difference between Parler and Twitter are what speech they choose to moderate. If you get banned from either platform, you can still go to the other — or to a wholly different platform. You have no right to make third parties host your speech, even if they claim to run a “free speech platform”.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Feel free to explain how a privately owned, for profit company is even the slightest bit 'Marxist', and how it's censorship to expect right wing users to obey the rules they agreed to when they signed up, we're all ears.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I don't know, but my sarcasm detector was going off at that Anonymous Coward. I think he was joking.
…but then again, I could be wrong. The last four years has taught me that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Such is the Poe problem, when the regular excuses or arguments are already batshit crazy it becomes impossible to differentiate them from people merely pretending to be crazy/grossly dishonest.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Unfortunately with the nonsense parroted by our resident right wing trolls it's virtually impossible to tell anymore.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Especially as we've had one in this very comment section who didn't seem to realise that Twitter is a capitalist enterprise run by capitalists.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"Facebook and Twitter, on the other hand, are Marxist platforms"
The only thing "marxist" around here is that persistent nagging by Baghdad Bob about how corporations need to justify their existence and private property, if popular enough with the public, needs to be seized for the common good.
The more I read from the people opposing section 230 the more I find their arguments to be rooted in the outright advocacy to seize the means of production by having private property declared public space.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Nope, but he will unironically call for actual Marxism (such as calling for the government to seize private property because they offend him) while misusing the word.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I’m pretty sure that this was a joke.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Anonymous Coward and his comments.....
Oi.
Ok. First things first. I am NOT now, nor have I ever been, employed by TechDirt or any of its owners. I am, however, a loyal reader. A "fanboy", if you will. chortle
Also, for your edification, (as I have stated in previous replies to your comments) I am not a left-leaning liberal. If one must "put a label" on my political views, I believe Independent, perhaps Libertarian MIGHT be somewhat more accurate, although not exactly. For example, I support Medicare for All, but I am somewhat dubious as to how the government is going to pay for it. Immigration? Absolutely. That's how our tiny little country was founded. But, like 99% of the rest of the countries around the world, I believe in having requirements in place to vet potential future-citizens to make sure they aren't coming here to do us harm. (Totally off-topic, I know).
That being said, I generally (maybe 70-80% of the time) agree with and/or support the views I read here. There are also opinions that Mike and his crew post here that I disagee with.
One of your complaints is that "fanboys" like me are simply shooting one-liners at you, and not taking any time to have a "civil discussion" of your perceived grievances. So, I finished binge-watching a show I discovered (so fun), and decided to take a stab at MY personal OPINION in response to your recent screeds. (admittedly more of a diatribe than a discussion, but hey.....)
Now, your chief complaint of late is that Mike Masnick is personally blocking you, or, by extension, is using some sort of artificial intelligence algorithm to block your comments.
I've already notated the TechDirt article that explains the difference between Moderation, Discretion and Censorship. To sum up:
Let me try a different tack:
The example is me inviting you over to my house to have dinner. Now, keep in mind, this is my house. I own it. I pay the utility bills, I mow the lawn, I pay the property taxes. You get the picture.
Now, you enter my house, greet my wife and kids, and we enjoy a pleasent evening of conversation over some tasty comestibles. At the end of the evening, you give my son a quick fist-bump, tell my daughter the drawing she showed you really does look like a dinosaur, and thank my wife for a lovely dinner. Nice, right? I would hazard a guess that out there, in the rest of the country, if this occurred in this manner, you'd probably be asked back. Because you acted nicely and politely.
Now let's look it in a different way: Same setup, but this time, you get drunk, cuss at my children and yell at wife and tell her she's fat. Now, I would be tempted to tell you to get the hell out of my house, but, I know my wife. She's a redhead. You try THAT behaviour and she will literally rip off your head and shit down your neck! (She's really badass).
And why, you ask? Simple. It's my house. And in my house, I make the rules, NOT YOU. You are a GUEST. That's it. You act like an asshole, and I'll treat you like an asshole. But, you act nicely and I'll act nicely.
This way-too-verbose-thought-experiment is very much the same as this blog. Mr. Masnick and his company OWN it. They pay someone for the domain name registation, email services, yada-yada-yada.
No website has a duty to provide YOU with ANYTHING. You are granted tacit permission to read the blog posts at will. The only way I could conceivably see where TechDirt (or any website, like FB or Twitter) MIGHT be obligated to provide you with a "right" for the world to bask in your editorial awesomeness is if you were PAYING a fee for such. You aren't. So, pretty much, you get what you pay for.
Now, at TechDirt, (like so many other blogs around the world) "Maz" provides a method by which the collection of readers can flag a comment. Since I can't drop an image here, TechDirt provides FIVE, - count 'em FIVE - ways to flag any comment. Three of those TD provides at no charge to the average reader: Insightful, LOL, or 'Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam'. (You could also opt to pay for credits that allow you to promote a comment as the First Word or the Last Word.)
So, along comes a person who posts a comment that someone, a few, several, or a veritable fuckload of people decide is abusive, or trolling or spammy. I am guessing that (at some point) the comment that the majority of readers has decided is either abusive, trolling, spam or some combination of the three will get "hidden". Or, TechDirt may use some sort of artifical intelligence that chooses to hide a given comment. But, this is merely a guess. Why? BECAUSE I HAVE NO CONCRETE PROOF.
I believe it is self-evident that the majority of readers disagree with your comment(s). Sorry, pal, not everyone is going to agree with 100% of the time. That's life.
Your comments decry your perceived "right" to post on a website. You don't HAVE a "right" to post a comment. You have an opportunity, yes. You have a priviledge, certainly. But again, this is just MY OPINION.
Your comments make wild claims that TechDirt or Mike himself is enaging in some sort of nefarious behaviour to deprive you of these supposed "rights" to free speech. This is also incorrect. Neither TechDirt nor any other venue on the internet has any legal obligation to you (or me, for that matter). If you disagree, that's fine. Again, show me your proof. Backing up one accusation with another (restated) accusation IS NOT PROOF. It's your OPINION.
So, all this bellyaching and kvetching is simply because you were INCONVENIENCED. Nothing was taken from you, ergo, nothing is owed to you.
The First Amendment states:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.SourceThat prevents CONGRESS from prohibiting your comments. Not a privately owned blog.
There you go. That's my 2 cents. I would be glad to continue this discussion, but first you would have to possess....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
IOKIYAR.
It really is as simple as that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Twitter censoring and leftist harassment are SAME thing.
Actually, Twitter esp Dorsey and those harassing on Parler are all "leftists", so it's entirely consistent with them -- and of course okay with YOU since they are leftists.
Actually, the harassment here that I get and the empty comments on Parler should all be removed.
But Maz never even hints that his fanboys are rude and should be "moderated". It's only the opposition that gets "hidden" here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Twitter censoring and leftist harassment are SAME thing.
Then.....uh....stop posting here, maybe???
I dunno. If you put your hand on a hot stove and get burned, is it really a good idea to put your hand BACK on the same stove?
Think??
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Twitter censoring and leftist harassment are SAME thing.
Dorsey is a capitalist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Twitter censoring and leftist harassment are SAME thing.
I guess somebody needs to start techparlerdirt, then huh?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What's the difference between a Twitter troll and a Parler troll?
A: One of them is too stupid to realize that they are acting like a troll!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I guess they can also lie on the internet...
Unless that thing is taking credit for every fraud on the internet... which is fine.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
innocous leader
trouble again
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
innocous leader trouble again
that is, censoring
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
that is, censoring
otherwise Techdirt would be corrected on its leftism.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
preventing "conservatives" from even being seen...
isn't so brave as Parler, now is it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: preventing "conservatives" from even being seen...
Uh, actually, I'm a conservative. You see me gleefully replying to your shitposts….
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
well, one-liners seem to be getting in
but Masnick while hooting others can't risk more!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
so I'll just show that there would be opposition
IF The Maz wasn't such a chicken! -- BAWK, BAWK! (that's what people resort to)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Twitter censoring and leftist harassment are SAME thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Twitter censoring and leftist harassment are SAME thing.
There is NO contradiction: the left -- Twitter employees and especially Dorsey -- wish to shut up "conservatives" and use every tactic they can.
Of course YOU whose main "political" characteristic is hating conservatives find both forms of harassment "hilarious".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Twitter censoring and leftist harassment are SAME thing.
Evidently (I see now) is a LENGTH limit.
The Maz cheats in every way possible.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Was Twitter banning NYPost over Biden crimes a "glitch"?
NO. Dorsey stated under oath that it was deliberate intended policy. -- And didn't end it for TWO WEEKS, while demanding NYPost take down content.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Was Twitter banning NYPost over Biden crimes a "glitch&
You are as typical of leftists LYING in every way possible: false comparison, omission, and outright fabrication, just another ad hom attack on "conservatives" for being bad people, devoid of any substance on policy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Was Twitter banning NYPost over Biden crimes a "gli
Conservatives /are/ bad people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Was Twitter banning NYPost over Biden crimes a "
the stupid, it hurts
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Was Twitter banning NYPost over Biden crimes a "glitch"?
Yes, but not a policy against conservatives. It was a policy against leaked emails. It was a bad policy, but it was perfectly even-handed.
That never happened.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Evidently The Maz wants LOTS of comments...
so put a length limit on.
Don't blame ME, then, kids, for sprawling them, plus a few extra.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Evidently The Maz wants LOTS of comments...
Here. Have a bunch of flags and fuck off.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Evidently The Maz wants LOTS of comments...
Thanks! That's more than I usually get. It's even almost on topic.
And it's interesting that "Glen", who can't be bothered to make an account, is watching the site late night US time, and appears confident that the "flags" will soon hide my comments.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Flag and ignore, much like dealing with any other petulant child throwing a tantrum you send them to time out and then refuse to give them the attention they so desperately want.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Except you don't "ignore", but get in a dig.
You just violated your own term, for start.
Now, in this piece of Parler is having to "moderate", you instead propose outright censoring -- euphemized as "hide" here becuase you clowns can never be up-front -- to make Techdirt a "safe space" just as Masnick is trying to hoot up there.
Total contradictions and unable to see self as others do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Except you don't "ignore", but get in a dig.
I see you don't get the difference between censorship, moderation and discretion.
Here's a hint: your posts being hidden is not censorship. It's moderation. It doesn't have any governmental threats behind it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Evidently The Maz wants LOTS of comments...
There is no length limit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Again Maz don't know 'bout common law terms:
That means NOT vulgar (no using the word "fuck" for instance, Maz) and Brandenburg rules on acceptable speech.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Again Maz don't know 'bout common law terms:
You say no more than are gleeful that hateful little leftists invaded and trouble Parler.
Yes, The Heckler's Veto works.
But vulgarity and ad hom attacks don't make a site interesting and popular. I told you WAY back in 2009 that allowing your hateful little fanboys to be vulgar would ruin the site, and HAS. Shadow of former glory.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Again Maz don't know 'bout common law terms:
And of course NOW you've only a half dozen of the most loyal, yet have harshened your own stance and practices because of reasoned opposition, NOT vulgar attacks from me and the famous antidirt, among others.
Entirely different: you just cannot stand opposition even when mild.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Again Maz don't know 'bout common law terms:
Behind the scenes, as my difficulty getting in shows -- the apparent length limit which can only discover by trial and error -- you disadvantage opposing viewpoints -- which isn't strictly legal, but we've no lever to use on you, YET.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Again Maz don't know 'bout common law terms:
Ok, lawyer boi, please provide a link to the exact webpage that shows where Mr. Masnick is doing anything illegal. I would LOVE to see it.
FTFY
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Again Maz don't know 'bout common law terms:
There's no length limit, or if there is it's waaaaaayyyy longer than what you typed. Sorry if this seems spammy, but I just want to demonstrate that you can pretty much post as much as you want here, so here's the entire text of the US constitution (less amendments) for example:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Article. I.
Section. 1.
All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.
Section. 2.
The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.
No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode-Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New-York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five, and Georgia three.
When vacancies happen in the Representation from any State, the Executive Authority thereof shall issue Writs of Election to fill such Vacancies.
The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.
Section. 3.
The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof, for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.
Immediately after they shall be assembled in Consequence of the first Election, they shall be divided as equally as may be into three Classes. The Seats of the Senators of the first Class shall be vacated at the Expiration of the second Year, of the second Class at the Expiration of the fourth Year, and of the third Class at the Expiration of the sixth Year, so that one third may be chosen every second Year; and if Vacancies happen by Resignation, or otherwise, during the Recess of the Legislature of any State, the Executive thereof may make temporary Appointments until the next Meeting of the Legislature, which shall then fill such Vacancies.
No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.
The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided.
The Senate shall chuse their other Officers, and also a President pro tempore, in the Absence of the Vice President, or when he shall exercise the Office of President of the United States.
The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.
Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.
Section. 4.
The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.
The Congress shall assemble at least once in every Year, and such Meeting shall be on the first Monday in December, unless they shall by Law appoint a different Day.
Section. 5.
Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members, and a Majority of each shall constitute a Quorum to do Business; but a smaller Number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the Attendance of absent Members, in such Manner, and under such Penalties as each House may provide.
Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.
Each House shall keep a Journal of its Proceedings, and from time to time publish the same, excepting such Parts as may in their Judgment require Secrecy; and the Yeas and Nays of the Members of either House on any question shall, at the Desire of one fifth of those Present, be entered on the Journal.
Neither House, during the Session of Congress, shall, without the Consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other Place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting.
Section. 6.
The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States. They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.
No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been encreased during such time; and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office.
Section. 7.
All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.
Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.
Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the Same shall take Effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the Rules and Limitations prescribed in the Case of a Bill.
Section. 8.
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
To establish Post Offices and post Roads;
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;—And
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
Section. 9.
The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.
The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.
No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.
No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.
No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.
No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.
No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.
No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.
Section. 10.
No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.
No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.
No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.
Article. II.
Section. 1.
The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.
The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two Persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately chuse by Ballot one of them for President; and if no Person have a Majority, then from the five highest on the List the said House shall in like Manner chuse the President. But in chusing the President, the Votes shall be taken by States, the Representation from each State having one Vote; A quorum for this Purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two thirds of the States, and a Majority of all the States shall be necessary to a Choice. In every Case, after the Choice of the President, the Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal Votes, the Senate shall chuse from them by Ballot the Vice President.
The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.
No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, the Same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by Law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall then act as President, and such Officer shall act accordingly, until the Disability be removed, or a President shall be elected.
The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation, which shall neither be encreased nor diminished during the Period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them.
Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:—"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Section. 2.
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.
He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.
Section. 3.
He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.
Section. 4.
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
Article III.
Section. 1.
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
Section. 2.
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;— between a State and Citizens of another State,—between Citizens of different States,—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.
Section. 3.
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
Article. IV.
Section. 1.
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
Section. 2.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on Demand of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime.
No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.
Section. 3.
New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.
The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.
Section. 4.
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.
Article. V.
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
Article. VI.
All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
Article. VII.
The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same.
The Word, "the," being interlined between the seventh and eighth Lines of the first Page, The Word "Thirty" being partly written on an Erazure in the fifteenth Line of the first Page, The Words "is tried" being interlined between the thirty second and thirty third Lines of the first Page and the Word "the" being interlined between the forty third and forty fourth Lines of the second Page.
Attest William Jackson Secretary
done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independance of the United States of America the Twelfth In witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Again Maz don't know 'bout common law terms:
You blocked my home IP address, and so said "antidirt" that you blocked his.
I wouldn't be getting in at all without TOR.
You keep preaching as if you're a paragon of decency and good practice, while out of sight trying to stop opposition from even being seen. --- Unlike Parler which allows it! And yet you criticize it! Sheesh.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Again Maz don't know 'bout common law terms:
The "hiding" here is NOT by "the community" but must necessarly be by an Admin.
There's no upvotes even possible.
It's in secret. We don't even know are any "flag" clicks. -- You urge "transparency" on others, though!
There's NO way to avoid triggering the alleged "community", NO published rules...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Again Maz don't know 'bout common law terms:
(I'm just going until the usual hidden blocking of browser is done.)
How many clicks out of how many readers does it take to "hide" a comment, Maz?
I've asked at least a hundred times by now. You won't answer because ANY will be evidence of how you're cheating.
It's either an Admin or a magic "voting system" (as you've stated) that is sentient and knows exactly who to censor, because MY comments ALWAYS get censored, fanboys NEVER.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Again Maz don't know 'bout common law terms:
Once again, not true. I've had several of my comments flagged. And you know what? I don't really care :)
I still read TechDirt because of their expertise and reputation, not necessarily their politics.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Again Maz don't know 'bout common law terms:
And yet you have the arrogance to snipe at Parler!
While your only presence is here on this one tiny little -- and decreasing -- site with YOUR cheaty hands on the controls, by which you've run off everyone reasonable.
Why don't you go on Parler and attack it directly, Maz? HMM? You stay in your "safe space" and try to snipe at long range, won't even be noticed!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Again Maz don't know 'bout common law terms:
"cheaty"? Really?
chortle
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Again Maz don't know 'bout common law terms:
Yes, really. Masnick cheats out of sight to stop dissent from even being seen.
Gosh, I appreciate you HELPING ME by showing the level of discourse here. I keep wondering why, when the site runs down continually, shedding even long-term fanboys (I have a list of most accounts that have ever been here: old accounts just go inactive and most never return -- the few which do are probably Zombie astro-turfing) anyhoo, that fanboys believe should make such comments as the above is just one of the main points any new reader should know, so THANKS!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Again Maz don't know 'bout common law terms:
"Gosh, I appreciate you HELPING ME by showing the level of discourse here"
Yes, it does help to see comments from adults in between the ravings of a lunatic, it does help highlight that the level of debate is perfectly fine other than the one obnoxious moron.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Again Maz don't know 'bout common law terms:
"While your only presence is here on this one tiny little -- and decreasing -- site with YOUR cheaty hands on the controls, by which you've run off everyone reasonable."
Oh, that's why you're still here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Again Maz don't know 'bout common law terms:
So, Maz: why don't you be brave again and turn OFF the "hiding" for me? -- As was done in Sept through Dec or so 2017 (though of course not stated, that'd be evidence), so I KNOW it's a literal switch or Admin decision that you could do in two seconds.
IF you were brave like Parler, that is.
But in fact, just ME, is more dissent than you can handle, so you'll keep cheating.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Again Maz don't know 'bout common law terms:
I’m pretty sure that’s not how it works at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Huh. Comments not "hidden" for near hour...
That seems to be done when I stay on, indicating is Manual control.
And browser session not poisoned... as seems done when Maz wants comments. Been FEW today.
And no fanboys have pooped (sic) up except for the obvious sock-puppet "Glen" screen name...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Huh. Comments not "hidden" for near hour...
No. That’s just because it takes a while for enough flags to accumulate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Maz jeers at this? Why? Do you want insults and bullying, Maz?
I think he does.
And as mentioned, Maz has his own "safe space" here, which he NEVER ventures out of. -- His Twitter account doesn't get hit that I've seen: no one cares that much, even if noticed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Maz jeers at this? Why? Do you want insults and bullying, Ma
So, what you're saying is you prefer to stalk Mr. Masnick on Twitter and TechDirt? Sounds like a true TechDirt fanboi…… :)
Awww, him lervs him some Maz….:P
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Maz jeers at this? Why? Do you want insults and bullying
The usual inability to comprehend / deliberately wrong paraphrase.
No, I state that
1) Techdirt outright censors (out of sight) / disadvantages visibly) me, while Parler only moderates.
2) That I reply on-topic and civilly in the plain HTML box that Techdirt provides of own free will, without ANY guidance at all as to acceptable comments, not even to number.
You're simply wrong and LYING too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Maz jeers at this? Why? Do you want insults and bull
`
noun
a restatement of a text or passage giving the meaning in another form, as for clearness; rewording.
`
I did neither of those two. I just copied and pasted text as it appeared.
(fixed that for you)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Maz stays in his own "safe space", pretending he's a Paladin...
Actually, he's REMARKABLE for being so low-level, not gaining experience after 20 years here!
He STILL dithers on how to reform copyright. Just try to get an answer out of him.
NO idea how to reform the patent system either. -- And DON'T point me to your alleged bullet points again that are deliberately to just weaken it. That's NOT reform, key word, that's to destroy it because you hate all "intellectual property".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Maz stays in his own "safe space", pretending he's
ALL of those doing that here are YOUR FANBOYS, Maz. Not the dissent. I'm always on topic and civil, yet I'M the one who gets comments censored.
WHY IS THAT, MAZ? Why don't you EVER even slightly admonish your fanboys? You jump on me when think it's safe, but your nasty little fanboys with one-liner ad hom? NEVER.
And you can't claim have any guidelines that they're (or ME) are violating, because you don't have the LEAST.
You FAIL at the minimum for a site that want discussion, don't even state that want it civil!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Maz stays in his own "safe space", pretending he's
Think I'll start copy/paste The Maz here and see it censored!
"One of the tenets behind the First Amendment and the concept of supporting free speech is the idea that you're protecting the right to speech that you don't like just as much as speech that you do like."
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101109/09401811774/free-speech-isn-t-free-court-barr ing-access-to-brief-about-free-speech.shtml
That proves it's not WHAT I say, but simple person / viewpoint discrimination.
SO WHERE ARE YOU PROTECTING MY SPEECH, MAZ? WHERE?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Maz stays in his own "safe space", pretending he's
A somewhat related link:
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20170829/09023438101/npr-gives-up-news-comments-after-all-wh o-cares-what-your-customers-have-to-say.shtml
Hey, am I not your "customer"?
Don't you care what I have to say?
Or is that just more of your preaching that only others need to follow?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
SO how am I to NOT get censored here, Maz?
It's been turned off so far tonight.
Why not leave it off except for those violating "FCC and the Supreme court" (that is, common law) limits against indecency, harassment, and vulgarity? HMM?
What's wrong with Parler's notion of how to handle those who ONLY disrupt? -- You should (but won't) note that I've stayed on topic here, and without vulgarity except when quoting YOU.)
What do have against decency and civility and being ON-TOPIC, Maz? Because clear you abhor those, and don't practice any actual "moderation" here.
Except you do remove "commercial speech", while claiming corporations are persons and have their own First Amendment rights!
You're just a bundle of contradictions because must HIDE your true wishes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A "safe space" for leftists / snowflakes means WITHOUT DISSENT.
DISSENT IS FINE with "conservatives", Maz.
But off-topic is sheer noise. It's the Heckler's Veto, doesn't require thought, doesn't ADD anything.
You and I clearly have fundamental disagreement on "speech": right here on TD YOU claim (figuratively) that THE NOISE OF BARKING DOGS is "speech", while my on-topic civil discusson must be hidden.
That's YOUR everyday view of "speech".
You don't want my speech here, even while civil and on-topic, so you always "hide" it, while allow your fanboys to yap like ankle-biters. -- As I've stated for over ten years now, and that they ruin the site. -- But they're your only support so you must cling to them and and disadavantge me! Simple fact.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A "safe space" for leftists / snowflakes means WITHOUT DISSE
Mmmmm, the psychosis is strong in this one......
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: A "safe space" for leftists / snowflakes means
The reasoning intellect is WEAK in "Code Monkey", just a one-liner mentality.
Also, smarty, you're responding to someone you claim is incorrigible. How smart is that?
And in piece where Masnick cheers leftist trolls! You typify them, and thereby help me. (Well, that'd be assuming anyone reasonable reads here, when actually it's just rabid fanboys, and little ol' me.) -- Why don't you spend your time where there's opposition, kid? As I do. Not in a "safe space".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: A "safe space" for leftists / snowflakes m
You are correct. I should waste my time toying with you.
Your soporific comments clearly demonstrate your missing chromosome...
Oooh, my show's on! Ok, bored now, moving on, trollboy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
WHO was the NY Post "harassing" when kicked off Twitter?
STATE some reason that wasn't Twitter absolutely arbitrarily CONTROLLING speech that didn't want to hear.
This whole piece is more of your self-serving snark in which you justify CENSORING by simply juxtaposing leftists MAKING NOISE.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: WHO was the NY Post "harassing" when kicked off Twitter?
So, after quoting Masnick giving a reason Twitter removes people that isn’t any more arbitrary than Parler, you ask us to give a reason? Seriously, the quote answers that for you: to deal with harassment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No, you're comparing apples to oranges: censoring vs noise.
1) It's not the same. -- I'm not on Parler and don't care, but you elide that Twitter censors while only exampling Parler moderating.
2) Twitter is big enough to fend for itself and has had every opportunity to make its case in front of US Senate -- it dodged doing so again because its excuses are failing -- a big and important venue -- and it's gotten well beyond "doubt" that is CENSORING.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No, you're comparing apples to oranges: censoring vs noise.
F**K off troll
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: No, you're comparing apples to oranges: censoring vs noi
Oh, another of Techdirt's eloquent fanboys.
Look, kid, the piece is about Maz wanting leftist trolls to invade Parler.
So why are you upset when dissent shows up here?
Why the vulgarity? Can't express yourself better?
Why should I leave, anyway? Maz of own free will offers plain HTML box to anyone. There's NO commenting guidelines so I can't be outside of them! On what grounds do you object? IF you do -- perhaps just uncontrollable urge, no thought expressed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: No, you're comparing apples to oranges: censoring vs noi
I note that "tom a sparks" breaks a five month silence to write 3 words.
Typical Techdirt commentor, then. Short, abusive, off-topic, and rare.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: No, you're comparing apples to oranges: censoring vs
I don't always post comments because 90% of the time someone has already said what I want to say
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You can't state fact without WHY Parler should ban them!
That seems whatcha call tautological there, kid.
Now, NO, I'm still on topic and still civil, so not here "just" to make fun of Techdirt.
I remind that way back I wished you to control your fanboys so that discussion could take place. You didn't. The site has practically collapsed because of the irrelevant hate and venom your fanboys spew. -- And NOW you think you've enough gravitas to criticize the much bigger Parler for attempting to keep its forum civil?
You are an a-MAZ-ingly arrogant and hateful little kook.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You can't state fact without WHY Parler should ban them!
NOT ad hom nor even "making fun". I toned that down so much as possible while staying within strict truth.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: You can't state fact without WHY Parler should ban them!
Being truthful doesn’t mean it’s not ad hom or making fun. Also, have you heard of projection?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You can't state fact without WHY Parler should ban them!
You clearly don’t know what “tautological” means. And it’s not criticism of Parler’s moderation to point out that they’re doing exactly what Twitter does. The issue is the hypocrisy, not the moderation. We all pretty much agree that Parler can and should moderate its forum as it feels necessary; the sticking point is that all defenses of Parler can also apply to Twitter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And having RUN the site for well over hour...
Shows why Techdirt usually censors opposition. The kids don't actually have any substance, but they can click to active Techdirt's mysterious "hiding", and they can ad hom.
That's all the support ya get with your tactics, Maz.
Your ridiculous notions can't stand dissent, so you cheat behind the scenes. -- Parler does it all up-front.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: And having RUN the site for well over hour...
You see, you have the wrong definition of the word "censorship". Censorship is when the government tells you that you can't say something and backs it up with the threat of jail or something worse. Moderation, on the other hand, is the site owner or the community telling you to stop what you are doing (in this case, spamming your comments like a bloody lunatic).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: And having RUN the site for well over hour...
NO, you make up one which serves corporate goals.
I'm censored by Techdirt, illegally breaking its Form Contract (see Consumer Review Fairness Act which has no teeth) to disadvantage viewpoints (another legal term well established).
AND YOU, an "account" having total of 58 months in gaps, rush in to defend the site? YOU ARE ASTRO-TURFING, probably by Geigner.
You'll prove it when lapse into more medieval-ish technobabble, Timmy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: And having RUN the site for well over hour...
According to what standard? WHERE are the guidelines by which I'd know how to avoid censored? Why are fanboy comments NEVER hidden?
This is at best a lunatic forum. -- Masnick CLAIMS that he doesn't "moderate".
Tell me just ONE fact, since you've previously alleged that you know exactly how "the community" system works: how many clicks out of how many readers does it take to "hide" a comment?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: And having RUN the site for well over hour...
And by the way, IF anyone new here (which I doubt): I'm enjoying a near unique time of my comments NOT hidden within 15 minutes, AND barely harassed by off-topic fanboys.
I suppose that Techdirt / Maz for once thought would look suspicious if comments hidden and harassment while he's criticizing Parler for responding to such. -- Ya never know, though. I had MUCH trouble getting in, at least a dozen attempts, until shortened way down (presumably why....) then suddenly the site is OPEN for unlimited comments and no fanboys show up!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: And having RUN the site for well over hour...
I suppose that Techdirt / Maz for once thought would look suspicious if comments hidden and harassment while he's criticizing Parler for responding to suchOr..maybe he actually has a life and is enjoying quality time with his family? Washing his car? Reading a nice book, perhaps?
Ignoring internet trolls? Solving a Rubik's cube?...…………..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: And having RUN the site for well over hour...
Masnick is ignoring you, eh?
You are here trolling the site with stupid off-topic attacks. YOU are a troll. Not me. YOU.
I'm still on the topic even by defending! You clowns show EXACTLY why Parler has to cut down on the leftist NOISE. You're just heckling without thought, add nothing. BARKING ANKLE-BITERS, as I've LONG called you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: And having RUN the site for well over hour..
You clowns show EXACTLY why Parler has to cut down on the leftist NOISE. You're just heckling without thought, add nothing. BARKING ANKLE-BITERS, as I've LONG called you......and we've all LONG ignored.......
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Of all the manifestations of their paranoid and delusional mind 'Someone actually has a life beyond TD, it must be part of the grand conspiracy' has got to be one of the sadder and more pathetic ones for what it shows about them, to the point that I might feel sorry for their diseased mind if they weren't such an odious and disgusting individual.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"Of all the manifestations of their paranoid and delusional mind 'Someone actually has a life beyond TD, it must be part of the grand conspiracy' has got to be one of the sadder and more pathetic ones for what it shows about them..."
Sadly not quite true. It gets far more pathetic when Baghdad Bob starts expounding on what this grand conspiracy consists off. Apparently he's such an important truthsayer the New World Order has mobilized the CIA, Google, and their paid stooge Mike Masnick to develop and run dozens of sock puppet accounts just to deliver a smackdown on one screaming troll - for years.
You'd think that if any of that were true he'd have been quietly disappeared a long time ago. Instead he has spent the last ten years with a bullhorn screaming "I have been silenced!!" in a shrill falsetto.
And the absolutely most pathetic part of all is the way he show up, drops his trousers, shits all over the forum, then smears it all over himself while giggling "I win!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: And having RUN the site for well over hour...
And to repeat: usually my browser sessions are poisoned (probably the IP address blocked) after just a few, at best, sometimes only ONE comment.
Techdirt censors out of sight. -- That's so obvious that isn't even denied! Not one fanboy nor re-writer has ever denied that Techdirt uses Admin tools to CENSOR out of sight. It's a serious charge for an alleged "Free Speech" advocate, but it's NEVER been denied. -- Because potentially leads to major tangles. Techdirt avoids stating facts of own beliefs / practices whenever can. It's a mystery, like how the "hiding" works.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: And having RUN the site for well over hour...
Actually, it’s been denied multiple times, even ignoring the fact that that’s not “censorship”, nor is it a problem for a Free Speech advocate to moderate their own site. That you missed or ignored the denials doesn’t mean they don’t exist.
This whole site is about discussing the writers’ beliefs in relation to current events. As for practices, they’ve been stated multiple times. The only things we don’t know are the details of how exactly the spam filter works, but even then we know the basic gist and that the filter is completely automated.
It’s pretty simple: users can flag content they think should be hidden, and after a certain threshold is reached, the post gets hidden. There’s no real mystery here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: And having RUN the site for well over hour...
Perhaps you are forgetting that this dude doesn't understand technology, so he has to make up some magic explanation why he always gets moderated and that's why he consistently runs into Clarke's third law: Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: And having RUN the site for well over hour..
Well, he doesn't understand tech, but I think the real issue is that his brain's so twisted he doesn't recognise that his comments are themselves a problem for normal folk. So, even if he did understand simple things like community voting and spam filters, his ego would tell him that there would be no reason for people to say "nope", even though that's clearly the only valid response to everybody else.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: And having RUN the site for well over ho
"Well, he doesn't understand tech..."
I think we could deal with him not understanding tech.
The issue is that his problems start with not understanding object permanence and the language he keeps trying to write in.
It's either that or his brain is in fact twisted to the point where even those baselines are repressed and denied.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ah. NOW Techdirt is reverting to censoring as usual.
The fanboys pop out -- all with same voice and take, such as NEVER any support for on-topic dissent from alleged "Free Speech" supporters, it's all "Techdirt has a right" -- when in fact its Form Contract establishes MY right to comment here on same basis as everyone else, NOT disadvantage, and with NO guidance as to acceptable.
Instead, Techdirt sneaks in censoring out of sight, and LIES that it's "the community" doing the hiding -- won't even admit there is an Admin!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ah. NOW Techdirt is reverting to censoring as usual.
And I'm gonna ask you this:
Where's your proof of your unsubstantiated allegations?
Because from what I'm seeing, you're a spammer with a massive obsession and a hateboner for Mike Masnick for some sick reason or another.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Ah. NOW Techdirt is reverting to censoring as usual.
NOT ANSWER, the usual evasion.
See all those "This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it."? Those are PROOF.
You're wrong as usual. I like the topics, and the forum, and even that the forum is a cesspool. It's not my fault! Stop blaming me. You and Masnick drive off everyone weak, then complain can't run me off.
I'm on topic and civil even now. YOU are off-topic and sheerly ad homming while avoiding giving any new info, just as astro-turfing would.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Ah. NOW Techdirt is reverting to censoring as usual.
Stop projecting. You are obviously spamming this article if you keep getting flagged.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Ah. NOW Techdirt is reverting to censoring as usual.
And no, the fact that your comments are getting flagged is not proof that you're being censored. It's proof the community considers your posts to be senseless garbage.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Ah. NOW Techdirt is reverting to censoring as usual.
"See all those "This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it."? Those are PROOF."
Yes, they're proof that the community find you a tiresome idiot and would rather tell the rest of the community that your resident basket case is off his meds again. Glad you agree.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Ah. NOW Techdirt is reverting to censoring as usual.
You never asked a question.
Proof only that the community doesn’t find your contributions to be worth anything. It is not proof that Techdirt “censors out of sight”.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Ah. NOW Techdirt is reverting to censoring as usual.
"Because from what I'm seeing, you're a spammer with a massive obsession and a hateboner for Mike Masnick for some sick reason or another."
Apparently some ten years ago either Mike or Tim responded to one of his deranged rants with the comment "There are dumb motherfuckers and then there are people like you..."* or something similar.
As it turns out Baghdad Bob is one of those very special snowflakes who can dish out but can't take it so his ego cracked like carnival glass under a sledge hammer and he's spent the last ten years pestering TD and Mike especially for being so inhumanely mean to him as occasionally refuting his wilder assertions.
It gets really amusing when he starts hollering about how every commenter not agreeing with him must be a Mike Masnick Sock Puppet. Especially so given that he himself got caught pants down on multiple occasions building sock puppet armies trying to back himself up.
It's why he instantly stopped posting on Torrentfreak once they started demanding an actual account required to post and why around here he keeps flip-flopping through Tor, pretending to be multiple different AC's.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ah. NOW Techdirt is reverting to censoring as usual.
Proof? You have proof?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Ah. NOW Techdirt is reverting to censoring as usual.
The proof is starting to appear last few minutes, without for far longer than usual, but evidently the tolerance has been turned off.
See all those "This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it."? Those are PROOF.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Ah. NOW Techdirt is reverting to censoring as usual.
go spam Parler about your creepy pinboard-on-wall Masnick obsession, asshole
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And here's how I know you're full of shit - because I've responded to your trash so often, so long, the admins have preemptively treated me as a spambot. Sometimes my criticism to you goes through. Sometimes it doesn't.
But unlike you I'm not nearly losing as much sleep over it as you, because unlike you, I'm not trash.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wow, that's one hyperactive spambot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Nah, he's not a spambot. He just gets his panties in a twist every time TD posts something that doesn't fit his myopic and broken worldview. The level of hyperactiveness is proportional to how threatened he is by the truth.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I assume the cognitive dissonance generated by simultaneously believing "any forum moderation whatsoever is censorship" and "when Parler moderates, that's not censorship" has him all wound up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Parler moments of lulzs.
Look, if we're gonna discuss these idiots today, let's not forget the fact that we've gotten to look behind the curtain. Because, dear gods, idiotic setups are idiotic. https://web.archive.org/web/20200717202137/https://home.parler.com/1
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Parler moments of lulzs.
That has to be a spoof.
No way even the alt-right morons behind Parler are daft enough to put their actual security process up into a publicly accessible page?
Please tell me that's a spoof.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Parler moments of lulzs.
The Internet Archive as far as I know doesn't pull pranks like that. So there are three possibilities I can think of:
1) it's real
2) someone hacked the internet archive to put that up
3) it's some kind of bug, where the content of the snapshot causes that to show up instead
1 seems most likely to me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Parler moments of lulzs.
I just shot Mountain Dew out of my nose when I clicked that link!!!! :P
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Parler moments of lulzs.
"I just shot Mountain Dew out of my nose when I clicked that link!!!! :P"
Blatant overreaction. Just because someone puts up their whole security process, including code keys and the means they use to secure passwords...<snort>.
Shit. I got coffee all over my screen now...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Parler moments of lulzs.
Apparently debunked by Parler's CEO....
https://thetimesofnewyork.com/2020/11/25/parler-ceo-john-matze-debunks-rumors-platform-was-h acked-theyre-simply-obsessive-about-us/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Parler moments of lulzs.
Not that I would take anything he says at face value. And his quotes read like they were written by a not very good AI or something. Perhaps typed on a phone in a hurry without proofreading? And is The Times of New York just the NY Times by a different name? Never heard of it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Parler moments of lulzs.
Following up....
I tried to go to https://home.parler.com and it appears to be a broken link.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What I would love to see.
I would like to see changes made to Their EULA and what is admissible, and What Can/can not be published/said/commented.
WOULD really like a Version number on it.
v.1.0 would be the best.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
#WriteInTrumpForGA
FAKE NEWS!
Everyone knows that Georgia uses paper ballots, so you can write in any candidate that you want. It's the only way to let the RINOs know that they can't abandon their (twice!) elected President to the FAKE NEWS DEMOCRATS like Fox News and TRAITOR BRAD Raffenberder without consequences. MAGA! Stop the Steal!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: #WriteInTrumpForGA
Even The Federalist is getting on board with the campaign.
Listen to this PATRIOT:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: #WriteInTrumpForGA
None of us are telling you to vote.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: #WriteInTrumpForGA
Heh. FederalistPitchbot is a satirical account that mocks The Federalist....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: #WriteInTrumpForGA
LOL... I thought, I know he's an idiot, but even he's not that stupid surely? I mean, I don't care what any random person on Twitter or YouTube thinks and don't tend to click through unless the person quoted is a known reliable source (and I don't think The Federalist fits in that category), but surely even this fool is intelligent enough to check that he's quoting the actual Federalist account?
This is Twitter bio for the account he quoted:
So, yes, he is that stupid. Wow.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: #WriteInTrumpForGA
"So, yes, he is that stupid. Wow."
It's a sad moment of enlightenment when you realize the deep abyss of pure stupid Baghdad Bob is setting as a lower standard for the human race. This is but the most recent glorious burst of brilliance - quoting an openly acknowledged satirist as his source of material backing up the publication being satirized - where Baghdad Bob tosses a link into the ring which says the complete opposite of what he's trying to argue.
I've been forced to conclude that either Baghdad Bob himself is an attempt to write a spambot able to pass some twisted Troll Turing Test or his very existence means we need to lower the baseline average IQ for the human race.
He could, of course, just be a persistent shitposting bona fide troll but in that case I'd have to argue his penchant for masochism is hitting tresholds prompting intervention.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: #WriteInTrumpForGA
"quoting an openly acknowledged satirist"
Not just a satirist - a bot. He considers a piece of code written specifically to mock him as a viable source, because it says what he wants to hear. He's so easily fooled that someone telling his to his face that he's being lied to can still get him to pretend he's not being fooled.
If he was capable of self-reflection and shame, this would be the moment where he realises how useless he is and slink away in shame. A pity that he's so predictable that he's probably now composing another 20 posts to pretend that he's right (one to boast how he wasn't wrong somehow, and another 19 to whine that nobody's checking the spam filter to release his nonsense over the long weekend)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: #WriteInTrumpForGA
"...and another 19 to whine that nobody's checking the spam filter to release his nonsense over the long weekend)"
...yeah. I'm curious to see how he'll fit "thanksgiving" into his growing conspiracy theory of all the nefarious ways in which Mike Masnick, the CIA and the NWO are..."Silencing" him.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: #WriteInTrumpForGA
Point of fact: It's not a bot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: #WriteInTrumpForGA
See, and I thought that would be the point where people would figure out that I was someone spoofing Hamilton, and not Hamilton myself.
Well, that or misspelling the GA Secretary of State's name by ending it in "-berder" (of "hamberder" gave)
I guess I did my job too well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: #WriteInTrumpForGA
"...and I thought that would be the point where people would figure out that I was someone spoofing Hamilton, and not Hamilton myself."
It's impossible to "spoof" Hamilton, Baghdad Bob, or the other deranged members of the politically confused "alt-right" crowd.
See, it's a bit like taking off your pants and skipping down the street flashing your junk while belting out a steady stream of invectives and occasionally shitting yourself on the hop.
Neither the bypassers nor the police will care about the explanation "I was just pretending to be that crazy nut I saw yesterday!".
Around here, if you want to surpass the Baghdad Bob or Hamilton persona you're going to have to actually spin a conspiracy theory involving Masnick being a stooge for the CIA on behalf of the New World Order and Google...oh, wait, that's actually a claim made by Baghdad Bob.
Or outright state burden of proof could be dispensed with...oh wait, Hamilton did say that...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[citation needed]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Oh that was glorious, and the last bit summed up their 'legal' cases perfectly.
Trump lawyer: We have evidence of fraud!
Judge: Can we see it?
Trump lawyer: ... no.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
That’s the difference between the show they put on to fool their idiot base and where they have to actually prove something. Rudy will put on a show for the cameras claiming evidence of massive fraud, but as soon as he’s in a venue where he can be perjured or disbarred he starts going “well erm we’re not alleging fraud per se and we have no actual evidence except some hearsay from like 2 people who might have seen 2 votes affected”
It’s a damn shame 72+ million people are dumb enough to believe this actual fraud at the expense of democracy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: #WriteInTrumpForGA
Well, don’t let us stop you. Just don’t come whining to us when you find out that paper ballots that don’t have one of the valid candidates’ names in a runoff don’t get counted.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: #WriteInTrumpForGA
Also, I just checked online for sample ballots. In a run-off election in Georgia, they do use paper ballots, yes, but you just fill in the bubbles, and there’s no option for writing in a candidate, so no, you can’t do a write-in vote for a runoff election in Georgia. Which makes sense: the point of a runoff is to limit the pool of candidates to those who did the best in the first go-around; allowing additional candidates to be written in would defeat the purpose. So if you don’t want to vote for the actual candidates in the runoff, you’re best off not voting at all.
Still, let’s just walk through some facts:
In the general election, one Republican candidate for the Senate got a plurality of votes but not enough to actually win, while the other Republican candidate for the Senate got a pretty similar number of votes as the Democratic candidate running against them.
According to the vote-counting machines and a hand-recount, Trump did not get a majority of votes in Georgia.
Votes will be tabulated the same way in the runoff as in the general election with the same equipment.
Now, let’s go through some logic:
It’s fairly safe to assume that most if not all people who voted for Trump in the general election also voted for both Republican Senate candidates in that election (or at least for the one who barely missed getting 50% of the vote).
Additionally, given how a majority of Republicans support Trump, it’s reasonable to assume that a sizable portion of the votes for each of the Republican Senate candidates also voted for Trump.
Now, let’s say that all of those Trump voters choose to not vote for either candidate in the runoff election. Since any edge either candidate had in the first election is certainly much, much smaller than the number of people who voted for Trump, even factoring in the fact that there’s no third-party candidate to take conservative/libertarian votes away from the Republican candidates, that means there’s a good chance that the Democratic candidates would win the runoff and the Democratic Party would have a majority in the Senate.
On top of all that, if write-ins were still allowed in the runoff, that would likely lead to a repeat of the general election with no winner given that, again, Trump lost the general election, and people who voted against Trump in the general election for President are not likely to vote for him for the Senate.
Now, let’s pretend that, somehow, Trump wins the presidency and gets another term. And let’s pretend that Trump also wins the runoff for senator from Georgia despite that being absurdly unlikely. That would mean another special election for the Senate seat because Trump can’t be both at once.
Now, I’m not trying to persuade you either way. It’s entirely possible that your endgame is to destroy the Republican Party. Just laying out the facts here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wait, they were serious?!
I saw that hashtag on Twitter and assumed it was some serious leftist trolling.
There’s a Republican “operative” who is both dumb enough to this this is a good idea and deep enough in the Q-sphere to believe in the evidence-free “massive fraud”? That’s some next level self-trolling.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wait, they were serious?!
Oh yeah, it’s real. Though a lot of Trumpers seem marginally smarter than that and are just planning on not showing up. They really want to self-destruct.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]