Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
from the twas-said dept
This week, our first place winner on the insightful side is Blake C. Stacey with a response to the return of the PACT Act, and especially its traffic thresholds for regulations:
As far as I know, nobody in a quarter-century of trying has invented a meaningful way to quantify website traffic, and every method for putting a supposedly precise number to it is an advertising gimmick. Why on Earth would we write a reliance upon an ad gimmick into federal law? It's like changing the penalties for a crime based on the quantity of bad vibes that it generated.
Here's a wild idea: Why don't we have a National Commission on Internet Regulation before we try to write legislation?
In second place, it's PaulT with a response to a commenter who repeatedly, vaguely complains about the sponsors of The Copia Institute:
I'll ask again what influence you think that the MacArthur Foundation have on this site, since you repeatedly provide that freely available piece of information as proof of something.
For editor's choice on the insightful side, we start out with Rico R. and some thoughts on Netflix's crackdown on password sharing:
Don't forget that Netflix is also now a part of the MPAA. Maybe that could have something to do with this crackdown? After all, many other members are against password sharing. And that's not to mention that they want everyone to never pirate and pay for every movie they want to own and every single streaming service that has something they want to watch. And pay for their Internet connection to watch said streaming sites. And their phone bill. And their electricity. And their water bill. And their rent. And groceries. And anything else they need to support a family. And probably more. And put some money in savings. And have an in case of an immediate emergency fund. And pay for gifts and other things they might want to buy. All while working a minimum wage job.
Tell me: Who has the ability to pay for all that under those circumstances? That's why piracy exists. Not because they're too lazy to go to the store. Not because they don't want to support the filmmakers/artists/creators of the content they consume. And not because they just want to get content for free. It's because if there was no piracy, they wouldn't consume the content at all. Period. So maybe ask them if they would rather have those who share passwords move over to a torrent site instead, and see how quickly they change their views.
Next, it's That Anonymous Coward with a question about a Florida Sheriff's use of predictive policing:
Funny, given the statistics... shouldn't they have been visiting off duty officers to make sure they weren't beating their wives, hitting their kids, molesting people, brandishing weapons to win debates?
Over on the funny side, our first place winner is Beefcake with a response to our story about a security failure involving Stevie Ray Vaughan and what it can teach us about security design:
Not surprising
Everyone in pop music was using the same major keys at the time.
In second place, it's sumgai with another comment on the story about predictive policing in Florida, where another commenter made reference to "Broken Windows policing" and set up a little bit of comedic intentional misunderstanding:
Just because they've also had more than a decade of abusing broken software, that doesn't mean that you should be bringing Microsoft into this discussion, eh?
For editor's choice on the funny side, we start out with PaulT passing along a famous quote about Ayn Rand that's always good for a laugh:
"Ayn Rand was a rather poor author and had a really stupid personal philosophy."
Which she was happy to throw out the moment she needed to depend on government benefits.
"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs."
And finally, it's Stephen T. Stone with a response to the question of why Republicans want to kill Section 230 even though it protects a lot of their nonsense:
Or, to put it more succinctly: They’re voting for the Leopards Eating Faces Party and hoping they can escape before the maulings start.
That's all for this week, folks!
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
I believe the internet is still under articles of rebellion and is neither legal nor illegal to deal in until the human and animal trafficking emergency it created is solved.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[And where are your citations?]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Citations don't prove anything to you people and you only ask for them because you are mentally ill
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[Projects facts not in evidence]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"Citations don't prove anything to you people"
Factual ones do. Have you ever tried providing one?
"you only ask for them because you are mentally ill"
No, we ask for them from the mentally ill person who keeps making unfounded and illogical attacks that require significant evidence for the rest of society to even consider believing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
He's projecting, because citations don't prove anything to him because they only prove what They want you to think.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"Citations don't prove anything to you people..."
Oh, they do. It's just that "What some guy on Stormfront told me" isn't a citation, nor is an Infowars article.
Facts matter, Baghdad Bob, and fuck your feelings if they happen to indicate differently.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If such an "emergency" even exists, people created it, not
a bunch of interconnected computers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"I believe the internet is still under articles of rebellion"
Which articles? Who wrote them? Are they international documents or are they something that everyone else can ignore until you get your act sorted out over there?
"the human and animal trafficking emergency it created"
Which aspects of trafficking didn't exist before the internet? How did the internet crate them? Why is resolving those issues more important than the lives, finances and careers of many millions of people that now depend on the internet to exist? Why do you think it's impossible to deal with both at the same time?
This is one of the problems with your rambling nonsense. Not only is it not based in reality and requires a lot of compelling evidence before anyone can take you seriously (which you always refuse to provide), but even a cursory application of logic reveals a huge numbers of issues and questions about even the internal logic you created in your claims.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"I believe the internet is still under articles of rebellion and is neither legal nor illegal to deal in..."
Everywhere on this globe which isn't Napoleon's France operates under the legal paradigm that whatever is not expressly forbidden is explicitly allowed.
That you can't wrap your head around that very simple principle is not something for which anyone else should suffer.
"...until the human and animal trafficking emergency it created is solved."
This is so dumb a statement that about ten years ago comedians might use that claim for parody. Today, of course, the alt-right actually believes that a venue of mass communication creates human evil. Let me guess, Covid is in similar fashion a product of people not going to church often enough or because bell-bottom trouser legs are on the way back?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Careful, don't give them any ideas!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"Careful, don't give them any ideas!"
Not like it's a new one - see the 13th century when the Black Death was blamed on people not being sufficiently pious or too many people had taken to wearing revealing outfits.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If anything, the continued spread of COVID in the U.S. is partially a product of people going to church a little too often.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Not just the US. I recall reading last summer that something like 1/4 of all infections in South Korea at that point could be traced to 2 specific churches. I doubt that vector has stopped as the calendar reached important dates on the religious calendar that encouraged people to congregate further.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Patient 31.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That and judicial cowardice and corruption in refusing to make clear and enforce the idea that yes, safety measures designed to stop a raging pandemic apply to churches too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]