Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt

from the season's-comments dept

This week, our first place winner on the insightful side is PaulT with a comment in a thread that tangentially devolved into antivaxxer nonsense:

These guys don't believe in actual freedom, they believe in the adolescent idea of freedom without consequence or responsibility. They should be able to do anything they want to do, no matter the cost or restriction to you that happen in the process. Simply asking them to be responsible is a violation of their rights in their minds.

One of the sad things about the modern world is the realisation as to how few people apparently managed to enter the adult would without emotionally or mentally progressing past puberty. It's just especially sad in this case because had they been responsible and not spent the last 18 months whining about basic healthcare guidelines, a lot more people would be alive now.

In second place, it's Kat from Creative Commons dropping by to comment on our post about copyleft trolls:

CC resources

I will note that CC is aware of the issue though our power to address it is limited!

We published some Enforcement Principles recently that we hope will both be adopted by media-sharing platforms and used as an interpretation guide: https://creativecommons.org/license-enforcement/enforcement-principles/

And in general are working on more resources for both creators and reusers to increase understanding and help solve disputes: https://creativecommons.org/license-enforcement/

For editor's choice on the insightful side, we start out with Arijirija's comment about vaccine patents:

Big problem here

Jonas Salk didn't patent the polio vaccine. Polio is now extinct. Humanity, 1; polio, 0.

Moderna is trying to patent something it developed with taxpayer money, and with government agency help. Quite apart from the very bad taste that leaves in my mouth - I do try to keep my mouth shut, FYI - that amongst other things, means that the technology is not going to be as available as it should be, so the coronavirus is going to have plenty of major-sized reservoirs in which to mutate. Moderna's in this for the long haul, obviously - they want to continue this blood-sucking policy for as long as they can screw the money out of the market - assuming that there will be a market in the long run, after all!

That is going to cost everybody quite a lot, and not just in monetary terms. If more variants like omicron turn up with the same long-term disabilities of the original "long covid", taxpayers won't be able to continue paying - there'll be a lot more deaths from preventable subsidiary conditions and situations such as irreversible poverty and exposure to the elements.

"Bail up! Stand and deliver! Your money or your life!" is not a fitting motto for a company manufacturing medical supplies. But Moderna appears to have adopted it.

Next, it's Thad responding to the claim that last year's Texas power failures were caused by recent efforts to make the grid more environmentally friendly and the state never had these issues before:

That's a weird thing to lie about in front of a bunch of people who know how to use search engines.

A Guide to the 2011 Texas Blackouts

Over on the funny side, our first place winner is That One Guy with a response to the long list of claims in Alex Berenson's lawsuit against Twitter:

'It's nor RI- oh, you missed that one somehow.'

That's disappointing, he was on such a roll of fail I was sure he'd smuggle an accusation of a RICO violation in there.

In second place, it's Eldakka calling out a typo in that post, in which we referred to "a Berenson":

There are other Berenson's out there?

Fuck me.

For editor's choice on the funny side, we start by heading back to the post about Moderna's patents, where an anonymous commenter responded to our use of Jonas Salk's famous words — "would you patent the sun?":

Mike are you seriously trying to suggest that some of these IP maximalists wouldn't try to patent the sun (if they thought they could get away with it, and enforce it)?

Finally, it's one more comment from Arijirija, this time in response to the ruling allowing a case to move forward over cops destroying someone's home to apprehend a fugitive:

minds boggle

"It is unreasonable for the City to suggest the Department officers stormed Baker’s house, broke the windows, knocked down the garage door, rammed down the backyard fence with a tank-like vehicle, and fired dozens of explosive tear gas cannisters into the home without a degree of certainty that such actions would cause damage to the property."

Does this city administration believe and claim that police officers - who are after all supposed to be tasked with protecting property amongst other things - of a suitably mature age, can doubt that smashing in windows causes property damage? Or firing explosive tear gas canisters into such a house, wouldn't necessarily cause property damage?

I have a Brooklyn Bridge I am itching to sell to a suitable purchaser. Could these officers please forward their details to me, so I can finalize the sale to them? They can be also buy some nice Everglade properties - formerly owned by some nice Nigerian dictators now passed on - if they so desire. And I would love to meet them - I have never met anyone with "Yesterday" on their Birth Certificate's Date Of Birth Entry before.

That's all for this week, folks!