You have skewed priorities if you think district attorneys and police departments abusing their power to drain people’s wallets dry while doing nothing to deter actual crime is “non consequential”.
Also:
“Hunter’s art work” — So what.
“[Hunter’s] laptop” — Show us credible evidence that says it’s his.
“all the technology left behind in Afghanistan for the terrorists to exploit” — How do you know they’re not working on an article about that? This site isn’t about breaking news, after all.
Feel free to stop reading this site if you don’t like its tone/direction/political leanings. Hatereading doesn’t do anything positive for your mental health, anyway.
All moderation efforts, whether they be those of men or machines, will make mistakes. Even if you could find a method that works 100% on a small platform, that method will not scale.
Hey, Koby: What specific conservative views do you believe are being censored from social media? Remember, you must be absolutely specific; generalities such as, well, “conservative views” will not be acceptable as an answer.
Hey, Blue Spheres: How do you square your opposition to corporate censorship with your approval of corporate use of the DMCA takedown system when a corporation strikes at legally protected speech using the DMCA?
There's nothing wrong with "machine-generated" speculative listings to try and ensure that the content isn't later listed elsewhere.
If these listings hit false positives, yes, there is something wrong. It'd be like saying “there’s nothing wrong with using a rocket launcher to end a domestic violence situation”: Of course you’ll kill the criminal, but you’ll also cause a shitload of collateral damage in the process.
I’m sorry, Chozen, but “nuh-uh to your uh=huh” isn’t enough to overcome Lostcause’s breakdown of your SovCit bullshit. When even they can credibly rip your shit apart, you’re done.
you aren't known for a single significant intellectual contribution
Projection, thy name is Chozen.
Now your blog could be good again.
Mike doesn’t and shouldn’t run Techdirt in a way fellate your biases. He doesn’t and shouldn’t run it in a way that fellates mine, either. You want a “better” Techdirt? Literally copy his blog’s contents to a whole other site and run the comments the way you want them run. Until then, you shall continue to be flagged and mocked and metaphorically torn to shreds and you will keep coming back for more. (How do I know that? Because you literally can’t resist it, you sadistic bridge troll.)
Its in the nature of what dismissal with prejudice means. 'There are no set of facts that could possible support the claim.' Which is exactly what the original judge said
You really don’t fucking get it, do you.
OAN couldn’t prove any of the opinionated statements made by Maddow rose to the level of defamation. Even if it had another chance, it couldn’t do that. The court didn’t rule on the statements of fact upon which her opinions were built because OAN didn’t even contest those statements.
The court never said anything in legalese that amounts to “Rachel Maddow’s show is complete bullshit”. The court never ruled that her show was “unbelievable”. The court never made any statement that claimed Maddow is a liar or that any statement of fact made on her show is only an opinion.
A fact is a fact regardless of whether you believe it. OAN’s reporter having worked for Sputnik is a fact—one that OAN didn’t contest, which I must (again) remind you. If Rachel Maddow believes that said reporter was/is a propagandist for the Russian government based on that fact, she is legally allowed to share that opinion. The court ruled as much, to OAN’s dismay.
If you could prove that what you think the court said about Maddow’s opinions (or her show) is what it actually said, you would’ve done so by now. That you haven’t—that reasonable people armed with more knowledge than you have proven your opinion is based on faulty reasoning—isn’t my problem. I’m not going to fix it for you, and you’re not going to ever be able to fix it. Or, to put this in legal terms…
Plaintiff argues that the courts have ruled that Rachel Maddow literally can’t be believed in any context. But Plaintiff offers no facts in their Complaint to support this proposition. They can offer no such facts in the future. The Complaint is summarily dismissed with prejudice.
There remains an unanswered—or at least unasked—question: How often did the Trump DoJ do for right-wing rioters/militias/terrorist groups what it did for Black Lives Matter/left-wing protestors?
Exactly. Trust, much the same as credibility, is like a spinal cord: It takes only a second to sever it, and if you ever regain function, you’ll never be the same. OnlyFans destroyed the trust of every sex worker and adult content creator with the announcement of the porn ban; even if some creators return after this pullback, they won’t be exclusive to OF any more.
This is obviously a damage control situation, as OnlyFans likely didn’t dream of so much of the press on this decision being focused on sex workers (and so much of that press being on the side of sex workers). That said, I wouldn’t count this as a victory just yet. Note the wording of this sentence in the tweet:
We have secured assurances necessary to support our diverse creator community and have suspended the planned October 1 policy change.
What’s the key word in that sentence? “Suspended”. They didn’t say they no longer had plans to enact the change, only that they’ve suspended the change. This leads me to believe they’ll wait until everyone isn’t looking—or until the tide turns against sex workers somehow—to enact the change.
But even with that pessimism, I do wonder what effect this whole situation had on the payment processors. Did they get spooked by all the pro–sex worker press and back off from being on-board with the OF policy change? Are they staying silent because they don’t want to be labelled as anti–free speech? That should be an angle explored by the press from here on out.
I welcome the news, but I do so with caution. This fight isn’t over yet.
Maybe it's a matter of you … running and hiding from Chozen's winning argument
I’ve been replying to their bullshit even though I know they’re a troll and have no intent of admitting their complete wrongness even as it’s pointed out to them (by multiple people!). “Running and hiding” would be what someone like you does when confronted with facts you can’t spin and logic you can’t outmatch.
maybe the same person (you and Mike) writing under two names
Yeah, I’m not nearly smart enough to be Mike. I’m barely smart enough to be me.
You’re continually exposing yourself to something you hate—reading it, commenting on it, possibly committing it to memory, maybe even stalking individual commenters/writers—because you consider trolling people to be a “public service”?
The 9th circuit is trying their best to tip toe around the issue but the obvious inference in their decision is that anything said on the show is opinion and cannot be libel.
The court said Maddow is expected to express her opinions, not that everything she says is an opinion. But please point to the part of the ruling that clearly and explicitly says what you claim it says…if you can.
Otherwise: Go have your biases massaged elsewhere. I’m sure Parler would love to have you.
On the post: Ninth Circuit Affirms MSNBC's Anti-SLAPP Motion Against OAN Network's Bullshit Defamation Lawsuit
They have the hubris to believe prayer can change reality.
On the post: Massachusetts District Attorney Delays Forfeiture Proceedings For Years, Some Involving As Little As $10
You have skewed priorities if you think district attorneys and police departments abusing their power to drain people’s wallets dry while doing nothing to deter actual crime is “non consequential”.
Also:
“Hunter’s art work” — So what.
“[Hunter’s] laptop” — Show us credible evidence that says it’s his.
Feel free to stop reading this site if you don’t like its tone/direction/political leanings. Hatereading doesn’t do anything positive for your mental health, anyway.
Door’s to your left! 👋
On the post: Trumpist Gettr Social Network Continues To Speed Run Content Moderation Learning Curve: Bans, Then Unbans, Roger Stone
All moderation efforts, whether they be those of men or machines, will make mistakes. Even if you could find a method that works 100% on a small platform, that method will not scale.
On the post: Trumpist Gettr Social Network Continues To Speed Run Content Moderation Learning Curve: Bans, Then Unbans, Roger Stone
What does your logic say about the opinions of the Taliban that aren’t calls to violence, then?
On the post: Trumpist Gettr Social Network Continues To Speed Run Content Moderation Learning Curve: Bans, Then Unbans, Roger Stone
Hey, Koby: What specific conservative views do you believe are being censored from social media? Remember, you must be absolutely specific; generalities such as, well, “conservative views” will not be acceptable as an answer.
On the post: Ninth Circuit Affirms MSNBC's Anti-SLAPP Motion Against OAN Network's Bullshit Defamation Lawsuit
Hey, Blue Spheres: How do you square your opposition to corporate censorship with your approval of corporate use of the DMCA takedown system when a corporation strikes at legally protected speech using the DMCA?
On the post: Fake 'U.S. Copyright Office' Imposter Gets Google To Delist URLs On Section 1201 Grounds
If these listings hit false positives, yes, there is something wrong. It'd be like saying “there’s nothing wrong with using a rocket launcher to end a domestic violence situation”: Of course you’ll kill the criminal, but you’ll also cause a shitload of collateral damage in the process.
On the post: Dominion Sues Newsmax, OAN, And The Head Of Overstock.Com For Election-Related Defamation
I’m sorry, Chozen, but “nuh-uh to your uh=huh” isn’t enough to overcome Lostcause’s breakdown of your SovCit bullshit. When even they can credibly rip your shit apart, you’re done.
On the post: Ninth Circuit Affirms MSNBC's Anti-SLAPP Motion Against OAN Network's Bullshit Defamation Lawsuit
Projection, thy name is Chozen.
Mike doesn’t and shouldn’t run Techdirt in a way fellate your biases. He doesn’t and shouldn’t run it in a way that fellates mine, either. You want a “better” Techdirt? Literally copy his blog’s contents to a whole other site and run the comments the way you want them run. Until then, you shall continue to be flagged and mocked and metaphorically torn to shreds and you will keep coming back for more. (How do I know that? Because you literally can’t resist it, you sadistic bridge troll.)
On the post: Ninth Circuit Affirms MSNBC's Anti-SLAPP Motion Against OAN Network's Bullshit Defamation Lawsuit
You really don’t fucking get it, do you.
OAN couldn’t prove any of the opinionated statements made by Maddow rose to the level of defamation. Even if it had another chance, it couldn’t do that. The court didn’t rule on the statements of fact upon which her opinions were built because OAN didn’t even contest those statements.
The court never said anything in legalese that amounts to “Rachel Maddow’s show is complete bullshit”. The court never ruled that her show was “unbelievable”. The court never made any statement that claimed Maddow is a liar or that any statement of fact made on her show is only an opinion.
A fact is a fact regardless of whether you believe it. OAN’s reporter having worked for Sputnik is a fact—one that OAN didn’t contest, which I must (again) remind you. If Rachel Maddow believes that said reporter was/is a propagandist for the Russian government based on that fact, she is legally allowed to share that opinion. The court ruled as much, to OAN’s dismay.
If you could prove that what you think the court said about Maddow’s opinions (or her show) is what it actually said, you would’ve done so by now. That you haven’t—that reasonable people armed with more knowledge than you have proven your opinion is based on faulty reasoning—isn’t my problem. I’m not going to fix it for you, and you’re not going to ever be able to fix it. Or, to put this in legal terms…
Plaintiff argues that the courts have ruled that Rachel Maddow literally can’t be believed in any context. But Plaintiff offers no facts in their Complaint to support this proposition. They can offer no such facts in the future. The Complaint is summarily dismissed with prejudice.
On the post: Report Shows DOJ Engaged In Selective Prosecution To Maximize Punishment For 'Black Lives Matter' Protesters
There remains an unanswered—or at least unasked—question: How often did the Trump DoJ do for right-wing rioters/militias/terrorist groups what it did for Black Lives Matter/left-wing protestors?
On the post: OnlyFans: Oops, Just Kidding; Keep Posting Sexually Explicit Material
Exactly. Trust, much the same as credibility, is like a spinal cord: It takes only a second to sever it, and if you ever regain function, you’ll never be the same. OnlyFans destroyed the trust of every sex worker and adult content creator with the announcement of the porn ban; even if some creators return after this pullback, they won’t be exclusive to OF any more.
On the post: OnlyFans: Oops, Just Kidding; Keep Posting Sexually Explicit Material
CYAUL: Cover Your Ass Until Later
This is obviously a damage control situation, as OnlyFans likely didn’t dream of so much of the press on this decision being focused on sex workers (and so much of that press being on the side of sex workers). That said, I wouldn’t count this as a victory just yet. Note the wording of this sentence in the tweet:
What’s the key word in that sentence? “Suspended”. They didn’t say they no longer had plans to enact the change, only that they’ve suspended the change. This leads me to believe they’ll wait until everyone isn’t looking—or until the tide turns against sex workers somehow—to enact the change.
But even with that pessimism, I do wonder what effect this whole situation had on the payment processors. Did they get spooked by all the pro–sex worker press and back off from being on-board with the OF policy change? Are they staying silent because they don’t want to be labelled as anti–free speech? That should be an angle explored by the press from here on out.
I welcome the news, but I do so with caution. This fight isn’t over yet.
On the post: Ninth Circuit Affirms MSNBC's Anti-SLAPP Motion Against OAN Network's Bullshit Defamation Lawsuit
[citation needed; must be from this reality]
On the post: Ninth Circuit Affirms MSNBC's Anti-SLAPP Motion Against OAN Network's Bullshit Defamation Lawsuit
Only from trolls like you, shitbird.
On the post: Ninth Circuit Affirms MSNBC's Anti-SLAPP Motion Against OAN Network's Bullshit Defamation Lawsuit
I’ve been replying to their bullshit even though I know they’re a troll and have no intent of admitting their complete wrongness even as it’s pointed out to them (by multiple people!). “Running and hiding” would be what someone like you does when confronted with facts you can’t spin and logic you can’t outmatch.
Yeah, I’m not nearly smart enough to be Mike. I’m barely smart enough to be me.
On the post: Ninth Circuit Affirms MSNBC's Anti-SLAPP Motion Against OAN Network's Bullshit Defamation Lawsuit
You’re continually exposing yourself to something you hate—reading it, commenting on it, possibly committing it to memory, maybe even stalking individual commenters/writers—because you consider trolling people to be a “public service”?
Touch some grass, my dude.
On the post: Devin Nunes Loses Again, But He's Still Suing The Satirical Cow Who Mocked Him
I haven’t seen this many L’s since that time I watched an all-Luigi 8-player fight in Super Smash Bros. Ultimate.
On the post: Ninth Circuit Affirms MSNBC's Anti-SLAPP Motion Against OAN Network's Bullshit Defamation Lawsuit
The court said Maddow is expected to express her opinions, not that everything she says is an opinion. But please point to the part of the ruling that clearly and explicitly says what you claim it says…if you can.
Otherwise: Go have your biases massaged elsewhere. I’m sure Parler would love to have you.
On the post: Ninth Circuit Affirms MSNBC's Anti-SLAPP Motion Against OAN Network's Bullshit Defamation Lawsuit
It’s a matter of perspective, really.
Next >>