Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
from the raised-voices dept
This week, our first place winner on the insightful side Bloof making a point that really shouldn't need to be made anymore but apparently always does:
The first amendment does not guarantee you access to other people's property so you can access to the largest available audience. If you want access to a platform, obey the terms of service you agreed to when you signed up. It's not hard, millions of us have done so since these platforms were in their infancy without issue.
'Conservative beliefs' are not a 'get out of consequences free' card. You guys love telling others 'If you can't do the time, don't do the crime', well, maybe you should think about that next time you post things you know violate rules you chose to accept.
In second place, it's an anonymous commenter with a suggested resolution for the standoff between newspapers and Google:
Google is missing an amazing business opportunity.
Here's the proposal:
- Google will pay the Newspapers 10% of the revenue they get from news.google.com.
- The newspapers pay Google 10% of the ad revenue from the pageviews sent to them by Google News.
At the end of each month, tally up the numbers, and see who gets the Free Parking money.
For editor's choice on the insightful side, we've got a pair of comments from our post about Florida's insane social media law. First, it's James Burkhardt expanding on the relationship between platforms and users:
Contracts require that each side is giving up something of value. Social media gives you access to their property. That is the 'consideration' they bring. Analogous Physical situations (museums, theme parks) explicitly understand that access can be revoked on the discretion of the property owner or their representative. The best compensation you could get is your consideration back. Normally that is money.
You don't pay facebook money. But at best the 'consideration' you provide is your content. Banning you involves stripping that content out of their site. If fact, that is the goal.
This gets right back to the point you were responding to. Either you aren't providing consideration, and therefore you can't rely on a contract, or your consideration, your thing of value, is your content. And if that consideration in the opinion of the property holder does not have value, or has negative value, they have a right to remove you to protect the value of the property. This is well adjudicated in the courts.
This is why free speech has long been the point of argument. You need a wedge to drive through long standing judicially recognized property rights and force new contract terms into the contract. Conservatives have been convinced free speech is that wedge as it was in the past for bigotted speech on TV, radio, and print. That you aren't even that far into the logic tells me how surface level your understanding of everything is.
Next, it's an anonymous challenge for the governor:
I would love DeSantis to give one example where a twitter ban meant that the person banned could no longer speak freely "throughout society."
Let's take Trump as an example, after being banned from most all social media, he is still able to publish his own blog site, can still have rallies, and whenever he wants, he can call up fox news and be heard by millions.
Explain to me how he is "silence[d] both on their platforms and throughout society."
Over on the funny side, both our winners come in response to our post about Trump allegedly demanding Parler kick off his critics before he would use the platform. In first place, it's Stephen T. Stone musing about possibilities:
Right-wing social media has too much of an anti-liberal bias. Surely there must be some law we can enact to take care of this issue. An equality declaration of some sort, a doctrine dedicated to allowing the fair and equitable expression of opposing ideas, could handle that.
…or we could all come to our fucking senses and laugh at Trump for being such a basic bitch that he can’t handle even the mildest criticism of his bullshit.
In second place, it's Greg Glockner with a quick quip:
Silly Techdirt, freedom of speech only applies to my speech, not the other guy. #sarcasm
For editor's choice on the funny side, we start out with a comment from Bloof about the oh-so-awful political tragedy of courts shutting down Florida's law:
They'll be MARXIST, LENINIST LEFT WING ACTIVIST JUDGES.. Chosen by Conservative pressure groups and appointed by known liberals George Bush, George W. Bush and Donald Trump.
Last but not least, it's Norahc with a comment on our post about the 2nd Circuit upholding sanctions against Richard Liebowitz:
Righthaven: We're the best copyright trolls ever.
Prenda: You're not even in the big leagues yet.
Liebowitz: Hold my beer.
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
Shout out
I want to give a shout out to this comment in reply to Koby's reply saying that the US government's power to compel speech is not unlike that of regulating cartons of cigarettes in reply to the most insightful comment here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Shout out
And I would shout out to this comment as being one of the funniest of the week.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
“The first amendment does not guarantee you access to other people's property“
Funny how restaurants don’t have a constitutional right to refuse access based on abstract and subjective criteria, but twitter does. It’s not like Women and POC’s couldn’t make their own lunch or find somewhere else to eat. #sarcasm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[Asserts facts not in the law]
(Back in the real world, the same costitutional rights and restrictions apply equally online and offline, thanks to Section 230.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Me thinks you missed the sarc tag.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Let me try that again:
Me thinks you missed the sarc tag.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"Me thinks you missed the sarc tag."
Most likely not. "Cynebald" has a grand total of two comments, both being of the same caliber of errant nonsense, joining the relatively large number of brand-new nicknames delivering classic Baghdad Bob/Jhon Smith/out_of_the_blue/Bobmail bullshit to the forum.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"Funny how restaurants don’t have a constitutional right to refuse access based on abstract and subjective criteria..."
Funny how the reality is the exact opposite of what you claim. Restaurants and bars have always been able to toss out patrons at will. The sole exception being if the patron being tossed out was a member of a specifically protected minority demonstrably thrown out for the sole reason of being part of said minority.
But a bar - or restaurant - can certainly toss you out for violating the dress code, using unapproved language, raising unacceptable topics or because the owner simply does not like you.
I guess the "funny" part is where you can't make an argument without first lying through your teeth, Baghdad Bob.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
1st Amendment IGNORANCE
The courts have ruled that government & its entities cannot censor few speech. Notice the words missing private corporations that are not government nor its entities. Google, Twitter etc. are PRIVATE CORPORATIONS, Not subject to 1st Amendment restrictions. Even techdirt.com has the right to kick me off their platform. So let everyone really understand what the 1st Amendment. Guess they skipped Civics class on the Constitution since it is so old.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 1st Amendment IGNORANCE
"Guess they skipped Civics class on the Constitution since it is so old."
I find, to an increasing degree that I, as a european, know the american constitution better than a great many americans do. The alt-right in particular seem increasingly content to use talking points generated right out of The Communist Manifesto or Mein Kampf to build their "constitutional" arguments.
It's bad enough that when NPR broadcasts the "Declaration of Independence" every 4th of july the alt-right clowns start screaming about "unamerican propaganda". Or claim it's yet another attack on The Donald.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: 1st Amendment IGNORANCE
There really, really needs to be a "sad but true" button, but of course, that would mean extra work for our good friend Leigh Beadon.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: 1st Amendment IGNORANCE
A much bigger problem would be naming of these weekly toplists.
"Funniest/Most Insightful/Most Sad but True Comments Of The Week"?
"Funniest/Most Insightful/Saddest but Truest Comments Of The Week"?
I'm certain that an entire linguistics department could spend a decade and put out dozens of publications without being able to square that particular circle.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: 1st Amendment IGNORANCE
I suggest "Funniest/Most Insightful/Saddest But Most Truthful Comments Of The Week".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 1st Amendment IGNORANCE
And courts have confirmed BS theories that try to transform platforms into state actors ("Fauci told them!") have no basis in law, contrary what certain illiterate trolls hallucinate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Terms Of Service Violation
This post is supposed to be for funniest posts of the week.
Hawking Molifeworld and Baseusworld are not appropriate here.
The description of a product as anti-lost magnetic earphone strap is funny it describes an earphone product. What is anti-lost?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
People who hate that weird show yhat was on years ago.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is This a Joke
"This gets right back to the point you were responding to. Either you aren't providing consideration, and therefore you can't rely on a contract, or your consideration, your thing of value, is your content. And if that consideration in the opinion of the property holder does not have value, or has negative value, they have a right to remove you to protect the value of the property. This is well adjudicated in the courts."
Is this a joke? The thing of value is your personal data which is aggregated and sold. You cant turn around and sell something given to you by someone else and then say that person gave you nothing of value.
Jesus the ignorance on this site is thick.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Is This a Joke
[Projects facts not in evidence]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Then leave. You won’t be missed. 👋
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No
The 4 of you living in your own little bubble need someone to tell you how wrong and ignorant of the real world you are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ah, the old “I’m not leaving because you’re wrong for not wanting my greatness around you and I’m gonna prove it” excuse.
Fuck off, Lozenge.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: No
You use a funhouse multi-mirror at home, or are you talking about your schizo personalities, Bob?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: No
Remind us all once again who keeps racking up the flags to have all their posts hidden, Bobmail...err..."Chozen".
Where is this "silent majority" supporting you? In your head? Represented by a few dozen sock puppets?
You are like that one single heckler in the crowd trying to tell the rest of the crowd that he outnumbers them. I do hope you've put a hat down. No one is likely to reward you for your clown act but you might earn sympathy cash enough for a subway trip or a cup of covfefe.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Is This a Joke
You're the fucking idiot who thought that "public house" ie a pub, meant "public housing".
Fucking idiot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]