Trump Bans Himself From His Own Blog; Upset That Everyone Mocked Its Terrible Traffic

from the such-cancel-culture dept

It's been quite a month for the former President, Donald Trump, and his attempts to speak out. Almost a month ago, Trump launced a Twitter-like blog, with very limited interactive features, a silly terms of service (which said they could moderate whatever they wanted, like every other site). As we noted, lots of people mocked it for being just a standard old blog, but it did make the point that despite what other social media platforms might do, Trump was not being "censored." He had lots of ways to speak up. Of course, after a couple of weeks, reports noted that the site wasn't getting very much traffic, we highlighted that this showed what the issue really was: Trump wasn't upset about a lack of ability to speak. He was upset about the lack of a free audience.

As more and more reports came out about the dwindling traffic on the site, Trump (in standard Trump fashion) insisted that the site was actually getting huge traffic, even more than last year during the election:

“The Washington Post also incorrectly reported about my DonaldJTrump.com website viewership. We have not yet launched our own social media “platform,” but even the very basic site we have to post our statements has received 36.7 million views over the past month alone, and we’re getting more traffic to our website now than in 2020, an Election year! This number would be even greater if we were still on Twitter and Facebook, but since Big Tech has illegally banned me, tens of millions of our supporters have stopped using these platforms because they’ve become “boring” and nasty.”

Of course, even if that 36.7 million number is correct -- which it likely is -- most of that was probably on the day or two after launch when people came to check it out. All of the data suggests that the traffic was a one time deal and wasn't coming back:

“As a matter of metrics, audience, readers, every single way they measure blogs—it’s a failure,” with lower traffic than sites like Petfinder and Eat This, Not That, Melber said on The Beat with Ari Melber. Citing a report by the Washington Post, Melber noted that not one of Trump’s posts on the “From the Desk of Donald J. Trump” site has gotten more than 15,000 interactions.

And now, following the bans from Twitter and Facebook, it appears that Donald Trump has banned himself from his own blog, shutting it down permanently. Trump and his spokespeople are claiming that this was part of "broader efforts" to have the former President engaged more directly with social media, and promised that details of these new efforts would be revealed soon.

Of course, the fact that they launched the blog with such hype, and talked it up so much less than a month ago, makes all of this seem (again, as per so much that is Trump) to be them just making shit up as they go along. Meanwhile, a Trump advisor admitted to the Washington Post that the reason it was shut down was that Trump was embarrassed by how little traffic it was getting and how everyone was mocking the site:

An adviser told The Washington Post’s Josh Dawsey that the former president wanted to open a new “platform” and didn’t like that this platform was being mocked and had so few readers. The individual spoke on the condition of anonymity to talk frankly about Trump’s plans.

Obviously, Trump has every right to kick himself off his own platform, just like every other website has every right to kick him off their platforms as well. I'm assuming we won't be seeing stories about Trump's "anti-conservative bias" though, huh?

In the meantime, all of this reinforces a few important things: (1) Trump has every ability to speak out if he wants to, but (2) that doesn't guarantee him an audience, and (3) building a successful website that gets traffic is hard work, and simply assuming that you can easily replicate a successful website and its audience is rarely going to work.

Filed Under: audience, blog, content moderation, donald trump, free speech, social media

The Intercept Publishes A Post From James Clapper's Classified Blog... the 'Intercept'

from the stupid-spoiled-Americans-and-their-rights dept

The Intercept, a site that regularly publishes classified documents, reports that the Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, also publishes a classified internal blog -- called (serendipitously enough) the "Intercept."

It even offers a secret RSS feed so analysts will never miss a post. Clapper’s Intercept blog has no relationship to The Intercept, except that he hates pretty much everything we stand for.

In a blog post [PDF] obtained by The Intercept, Clapper responds to a redacted "constituent" in Nevada who -- two months prior to the first Snowden leak -- wants to reassure the Intelligence Community that Americans have far too many rights.

“If the american [sic] people are not willing to release some freedoms, they cannot blame the IC when they can’t stop” domestic terror attacks because of the intelligence agencies “having their hands tied by Law [sic] & policy,” the “constituent” wrote. He adds that Americans “cannot have your cake and eat it too,” and then offers what has become a dangerous cliche in the post-Snowden mentality of the intelligence community: “So if one has nothing to hide why would a little government watching for mass protection be such a big question.” The letter ends: “WE SUPPORT YOU.”

In his response to this outpouring of love for government overreach, James Clapper -- perhaps feeling he was writing for the "home team" -- dispenses with niceties about honest government employees doing their damndest to protect American civil liberties while still keeping the government safe from international terrorism.

Instead, he becomes an echo chamber.

I can't tell you how much I appreciate your letter… I say this on behalf of all the women and men in the Intelligence Community. In my view you have very accurately described the issue that the Boston Bombings represent! Just how small do the Americans want the holes in the security fish net to be?

Clapper has greatly overestimated his affinity with the rank-and-file of the IC, as the comments on his blog post attest.

The first two intelligence people to comment on his post took Clapper, and his “constituent,” to the woodshed. “I think it was inappropriate for DNI Clapper to respond in a way that indicates he agrees with the premise of the writer’s letter, namely, that government must expand its domestic “watching” and the people must give up “some ‘rights’ in the interest of the greater good,” one IC commenter posted. “The head of the US Intelligence Community — the business of which is foreign intelligence —should not be taking sides on matters of domestic intelligence policy.”

Another commenter wrote that, like Clapper, he agreed with the letter’s author about “the fact that it is impossible to defend 100% against these kinds of attacks given the restrictions placed on America’s security forces and the freedom and range of targets enjoyed by the attackers.” However, this commenter, who went by the name Wormy, warned against being “too quick to release your freedoms and “rights” in the name of security.”

The head of the intelligence community is at odds with his own underlings. Clapper and Gen. Keith Alexander have long been fans of unrestricted mass surveillance that helps the agency pursue its "collect it all" goals. Clapper has lied about the existence of surveillance programs and followed those lies up with spirited arguments against any narrowing of their scope.

Clapper apparently believes Americans can get by with fewer rights in exchange for security he can't possibly guarantee. And all to save the nation from something less likely to kill Americans than lightning strikes.

On the other hand, if these two commenters are more indicative of the attitudes of the bulk of the NSA's workforce, then Clapper's assertions about analysts' concern for protecting American civil liberties have been accurate. Of course, they would be accurate despite Clapper, not because of him. If the general NSA attitude was more aligned with his views on the rights v. security debate, Clapper's statements would have been identical. They just would have been less factual.

Filed Under: blog, civil liberties, dni, intercept, james clapper, nsa, odni, rights, terrorism
Companies: the intercept

Anti-Piracy Group So Desperate To Go After Popcorn Time That It Threatens A Blog Software Maker

from the no,-it-doesn't-make-any-sense dept

We've seen, over the years, how copyright holders and anti-piracy organizations have continually moved up and down the stack in trying to shut off access to things they don't like. They've sued users for sharing, as well as companies and individuals who build tools that can be used for infringement, of course. Those were the obvious ones. But, lately, they've been targeting hosting providers, registrars, ISPs and ad networks as well. And, apparently, now some are so desperate that they're going after totally unrelated software providers. At least that appears to be the case in Greece, where the Greek Society for the Protection of Intellectual Property (AEPI), sent an angry threat letter to John O'Nolan, who created Ghost, an open source blogging system. Why go after Ghost? Well, apparently because one of the more popular forks of the Popcorn Time streaming system has a blog that uses Ghost. Ghost doesn't host it. Popcorn Time is just using its software. It would take one hell of a ridiculous interpretation of secondary liability to put any liability on Ghost. It would be like going after BIC because someone at Napster wrote notes using one of their pens. But such is the ridiculous state of the anti-piracy world today, where such moves seem sensible.

Filed Under: blog, copyright, ghost, greece, john o'nolan, popcorn time, takedowns
Companies: aepi

Canadian Anti-Piracy Company Caught Using Unattributed And Paywalled Articles To Fill Its Blog

from the putting-lipstick-on-a-scraper dept

Canipre, one of Canada's foremost anti-piracy enforcers, has a bit of a problem on its hands. Like others that zealously guard against piracy, the company expects everyone else to fully respect the IP rights of the entities it acts for. And like others in the same field, it seemingly can't be bothered to make sure it properly respects other entities' IP rights. (See also: BREIN, the BSA, the City of New York, the list goes on and on…)

Michael Geist points to Canipre's latest press release, touting the use of its evidence in a Voltage Pictures lawsuit, as well as its intent to fully take advantage of Canada's new infringement notification system. Then he points to this:

Yet what Canipre does not say is that a blog associated with the company may have been engaged in copyright infringement for many months. The blog – copyrightenforcement.ca – is run by Barry Logan, the company’s Managing Director, Operations (I received an email from Mr. Logan last year that listed the site as his blog address). In addition to posting releases from Canipre and information about the TekSavvy case, the site has posted dozens of full-text articles from media organizations around the world.

For example, last week it posted the full text of a 1200 word article on TV piracy from the Wire Report, an Ottawa-based telecom publication. The article resides behind a paywall limited to subscribers and is listed as “exclusive content.” In fact, reposting full-text articles from other sources is a regular occurrence on the site. Posts in December feature articles from the Huffington Post Canada, Business Insider, and CNET. Earlier posts include full-text articles from the Hollywood Reporter, StreamDaily, Reuters, the Canadian Press, Global News, Vancouver Sun, and the National Post. Some of the posts include articles that strip out reference to the author (Chronicle Herald, CBC) and others include no attribution whatsoever. The site also uses photos from the articles, often without attribution.

Hey, fair dealing and all that, some might say. Sure, but let's not get carried away. Posting up plain text versions of paywalled articles -- in full, without additional commentary or criticism -- isn't exactly fair dealing. And it's not as if Canipre has any respect for the fair dealing of others. It's an anti-piracy firm and its vision of the world's use of IP is solidly black and white. Either you've paid for it, or you're an infringer.

And, as Geist notes, there's plenty of stuff in there that goes further than what could even be the outer reaches of fair dealing. The blog has stripped attribution/authorial references -- maybe out of cluelessness, maybe in a desire to obscure its origins -- which is no one's idea of fair dealing.

This isn't Canipre's first hypocritical dance with the IP devil. Back in 2013, it was caught tarting up its dark and dramatic website with photos belonging to other people, all without even making the slightest attempt to credit the actual creators. Barry Logan was the man behind that debacle as well, who contributed nothing to the discussion of the company's hypocrisy other than some buck-passing to the third party site designer.

Even if some of this could be considered fair dealing, the company using the creations of others without permission frowns deeply and legally on those who would do the same to its protected content. Michael Geist's headline puts it beautifully: Canipre certainly has a beautiful glass house. Shame it can't seem to kick its rock-throwing habit.

Filed Under: anti-piracy, blog, canada, copyright
Companies: canipre

Oracle Deletes Jonathan Schwartz's Old Blog; Which Excitedly Celebrated Google's Use Of Java In Android

from the rewriting-history dept

There was a bit of an embarrassment in the ongoing patent dispute between Oracle and Google. Oracle, of course, is claiming that Google's Android violates some of the patents it acquired from Sun concerning Java. Google pointed out that if its use was so problematic, why did Sun celebrate Google's Java usage in Android? They pointed to a blog post from then-Sun CEO Jonathan Schwartz (who was the first Fortune 500 CEO to blog -- and who, unlike many corporate bloggers, actually spoke his mind on the blog), which happily celebrated Google basing Android on Java/Linux: Of course, that looks bad for Oracle... so it's response was to delete Schwartz's entire blog. Poof. That moment of history gone. Except if you have access to the Internet Archive's Wayback Machine. No wonder the Internet Archive has been declared a rogue site dedicated to infringing activities.

I imagine that Oracle also wanted to erase other former Schwartz blog posts, like the one we spoke about years ago, in which he pointed out that suing over patents is a sign of desperation and that real companies innovate, rather than litigate.

Now, many of you who will be quick to point out that none of that matters. Oracle holds the patents now and so it gets to decide. And that's true -- though I do wonder if such promises not to litigate over patents and to celebrate such usages might be seen as a form of a license... But, the larger point I wanted to raise is that this shows the dangers even of defensive patents. Sun held a ton of patents, almost all of which were for defensive reasons (or to just show what a joke the patent system is). And yet... now that Oracle has them, it can and is using them to try to shake down other companies.

Filed Under: android, blog, evidence, java, jonathan schwartz, patents
Companies: google, oracle, sun

The Copyright Alliance Blog Takes On Someone Who Wrote Something

from the afterparty-to-be-held-at-the-'tomb-of-the-unknown-writer' dept

A short while ago, we were openly discussing how not to hold an open discussion in the free air of the internet. It was a highly editorial post, stating my (and apparently, others') disagreement with the view that the "high road" is composed of off-hand insults and closed comment threads.

With that in mind, I bring you another blogging faux pas, courtesy of the Copyright Alliance blog. In a post titled "Setting the Record Straight on PROTECT IP," Sandra Aistars takes aim at an article posted elsewhere on the web:

Since the introduction of the PROTECT IP Act we frequently see articles and blog posts that severely mischaracterize and make false assertions about the legislation. For example, today we noticed a piece that claimed that the PROTECT IP bill would be a detriment to entrepreneurship. As an organization that represents individual artists and creators, who are themselves entrepreneurs and small businesses, we share the author's concern for entrepreneurship and economic growth. The creative sector in the United States, which is comprised largely of people you would consider the copyright owner next door, accounts for 11.1 million jobs across the country. Unfortunately his portrayal of the PROTECT IP bill is factually inaccurate in virtually every respect.

This is quoted verbatim. If you haven't noticed by now, there are no links to the original article or any mention of who wrote it. Considering this lack of information, Aistars could be talking about something her neighbor wrote and shoved under her door for all we know. In this day and age, I don't see how you can expect to tackle someone else's arguments without at least mentioning their last name.

It's a shame, too. Aistar's post does a fairly good job laying out her disagreements (even if I don't agree with all of her disagreements) in a very easy-to-follow point-by-point argument. (Although, she does spend more time than is needed pounding home the point about the bill addressing only sites dedicated to infringement, which according to the beneficiaries of this law include archive.org, Vimeo, Soundcloud and 50 Cent's personal website.) The problem is, no one knows who she's arguing with and even worse, nobody can verify whether this mystery person made the claims she's attributing to them.

It would seem that linking to the original article would be second nature... unless you're trying to avoid people actually reading what you're arguing with.

If you're confident in your argument, why wouldn't you link to the article? Techdirt disagrees with pretty much everything and yet, every post links to the source of disagreement. But the more Aistar calls out "the author" as a nameless, linkless being, the less inclined most people are to believe that her piece is even-handed.

If you haven't Googled up the solution to this "mystery writer," I'll go ahead and provide you with the link that the Copyright Alliance apparently couldn't get coded in by presstime:

"Blacklisting Entrepreneurs: PROTECT IP Could Harm Web Startups" by Paul Kedrosky 

Of course, it's no use rushing to the Copyright Alliance blog to ask why this was handled this way. The comments are closed and pingbacks have been politely asked to leave. Ironically enough, Copyright Alliance did take the opportunity to exercise their one-way rights and leave a comment on Kedrosky's post, which takes this whole situation past "obtuse" and into "egregious." Since I told myself that I'd be very even-handed in dealing with this bizarre breach of internet etiquette, I'm ending this post now and opening it up for discussion. Have at it.

 

Filed Under: blog, copyright, linking
Companies: copyright alliance

White House Threatens Blog For Accurately Using White House Logo

from the feeling-safer? dept

Last year, we wrote about the FBI threatening Wikipedia for having the FBI logo on its site. Wikipedia, thanks to its General Counsel Mike Godwin (of Godwin's Law fame), responded with a wonderful snarky reply. While the FBI backed down, it does not appear that the administration got the message that there are situations in which a website might post federal logos and not break the law. The latest involves the White House, who apparently got upset that blogger Keith Cowing (of SpaceRef.com -- a blog about science/space policy) included the White House logo in his post about a meeting of the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. In response, the White House actually called Cowing and demanded he take down the logo. In case you're wondering, this is the logo: Now, this is a perfectly reasonable use of the logo. We're discussing it, and it's relevant to the news story. It was also relevant to Cowing's post. The issue that the White House has is with 18 U.S.C. sec. 701, which is designed to prevent someone from falsely passing themselves off as working for the government by misusing such a badge. Posting the badge on a website where it makes sense clearly does not qualify. No one was reading that blog post thinking he represented the White House. The White House also mentioned the "proximity to advertising," suggesting they were afraid that it would be seen as being associated with the White House. However, as the EFF notes in the link above, that's a pretty ridiculous interpretation:

Cowing's use isn't deceptive either. The seal is plainly used in conjunction with the news article and the advertisement is no closer on this blog than ads are on news websites and in most newspapers and magazines for that matter. In fact, the seal of the Executive Office of the President of the United States is used extensively all over the internet, sometimes even in promixity to advertising. Threatening phone calls from the White House only serve to chill free speech. Indeed, Cowing has replaced the image of the seal with a pixelated version and the words �OSTP Logo Pixelated Due to a Phone Call Complaint from the White House.�

Finally, we agree with the EFF in noting: "surely the White House has better things to do than to threaten bloggers engaged in legitimate free speech."

Filed Under: blog, logo, white house

Apparently Russia's President Gets Angry When You Hit His Blog With A Denial Of Service Attack

from the blog-is-down-for-an-hour! dept

Denial of service attacks are a pain, but they happen. In many ways they're becoming one way that people protest against powerful people and organizations -- and some have discussed how many are effectively the equivalent of a digital sit-in. Of course, it's no fun to be on the receiving end of a DoS attack, and if you're in a position of power, it isn't surprising to react angrily to such an attack. But it does seem a little out of proportion for Russian President Dmitry Medvedev to demand that Russian law enforcement officials look into the reason why his LiveJournal blog was taken offline for a whole hour due to a denial of service attack.

"I have received many appeals in connection with the ... attacks on LiveJournal. As an active user of (LiveJournal) I consider these actions revolting and illegal.... What has occurred should be examined by LiveJournal's administration and law enforcement agencies."

Of course, it does seem a bit strange that he's only concerned about denial of service attacks when they impact him personally. Also, LiveJournal? Isn't that kinda like if President Obama had a blog on Blogspot? It's not that hard these days to have a blog on your own domain...

Filed Under: blog, denial of service, livejournal, medvedev, russia
Companies: livejournal

Peruvian Blogger Sentenced To Jail & Fined For Linking To Articles About Politician's Past

from the this-is-defamation? dept

The Groove Tiger alerts us to the news coming out of Peru, of a blogger, Jose Alejandro Godoy, who has been sentenced to three years in jail and fined over $100,000 (Google translation of the original Spanish) for writing a blog post about a Peruvian politician, Jorge Mufarech. The post linked to various news reports of criminal charges made against Mufarech in the past, and Mufarech claimed that such links were defamatory. Godoy pointed out that the information he wrote about was well-sourced and came from others, and also that he had offered Mufarech a right to reply, if he wanted it. Yet, the court still found him guilty of criminal defamation, leading to the jailtime. Godoy is appealing, but just the fact that the case has gone this far should be seen as quite troubling.

Filed Under: blog, links, peru