You haven’t lived it and can’t imagine how it feels - adults who choose to have sex for money are not the problem. The problem is the minor children who were sold on this site
You are correct. I have not lived it and I cannot imagine how it feels. But I am pretty confident that I would want those actually responsible -- those who engaged in the sex trafficking to be the ones who are punished for it. And I'd be concerned -- as we have seen -- when the focus is NOT on them, but rather on the tools that they used.
I'd also be concerned -- as the US government has reported -- about how after Backpage was taken down, it became much more difficult to track down and find sex traffickers, because it all migrated to overseas sites who don't cooperate -- unlike Backpage who did.
So, again, the complaint should be with the sex traffickers. The situation here, where we blame the tool makers literally makes the problem worse, and means that families who are now going through the unimaginable pain and suffering that your family went through are LESS LIKELY to get out of it.
Techdirt here would have been censored for several months if subjected to the Vaccine Talk rules regarding high speed internet availability back in 2018.
No. We wouldn't. For multiple reasons. First, we can actually back up what we say with evidence. We can show why the maps are wrong. With evidence. Which is all that this group is asking for.
Second, the rules on disinformation are mostly targeted at spewing disinformation that might actually harm someone. No one is physically harmed by false broadband map information
Personally, I don't think Techdirt or anyone else should get censored because they disagree with some official FCC coverage map, or any other government study.
If someone doesn't want us posting in their group, that's on them. It's not censorship. It's on them.
Indeed, there was no counter "study" available to refute the FCC for some time, certainly not within 24 hours.
You don't need "a study." You could easily present refuting evidence -- such as example on the broadband map that claim coverage, and showing that said coverage is not available. That's evidence.
Trying to eliminate bad faith arguments by saying that you can't contradict the official government study is in bad faith.
You're making up the claim that you can't contradict government officials. That was never a part of this.
The only "bad faith" argument here is you. You're making shit up. So here, Koby: provide some fucking evidence to back up your false claim that Vaccine Talk only accepts "official gov't studies". You have 24 hours or you've admitted that you're acting in bad faith.
This sounds like a way for government to control debate.
Saying you need to present evidence for claims? No, it does not, Koby. It does not at all.
Take, for example, the bs FCC wireless coverage maps.
Huh?
Many knew that it was bogus. Providing a citation to refute otherwise within 24 hours might not be possible.
What?
Sometimes, we "officially" prove what we thought was true only months afterward.
The only point here is that people need to show evidence to post about it. Your broadband map example has nothing to do with that, and none of this has anything to do with "government" controlling the debate.
Koby, seriously: this kind of nonsense comment makes you look really fucking stupid.
If the author of the contract intentionally makes it ambiguous that is evidence of bad faith and unfair dealing
I just want to emphasize here, that this is not how any of this works, and more importantly, there is nothing "ambiguous" about every terms that has a clause along the lines of "if we believe you have violated our rules, we may remove your content" and every such website has such terms.
Chozen is trying to (1) misrepresent what I said and (2) pretend that what I did not actually say somehow invalidates contracts. Both points are wrong.
I did not say that they make the terms purposefully ambiguous, because they do not. I was responding to someone who talked about whether the NOTIFICATIONS (not the rules) would be specific about what was violated. And I noted that that's a scenario where there are problems with being too specific in explaining the reasons for the takedown because it enables dishonest assholes (such as Chozen) to use that info to try to continue to be a bad actor.
That is wholly different than the question of whether or not the terms of use themselves are ambiguous (they are not -- every site has the right to remove any content they themselves deem inappropriate for the site).
And the rest of Chozen's nonsense is just bad faith trolling from an extremely bad faith troll.
No. It is not. Not even close. You've already admitted both in writing and in what you say that you have an active Googler's knowledge level of the law -- meaning that you misunderstand fairly basic concepts and engage in motivated reasoning to pretend the law says what it absolutely does not. Your lack of knowledge and experience in how courts actually work shines through. You are an ignorant fool, acting over confident to cover your very clear ignorance.
California judges will bend heaven and earth to protect big tech.
Lol. This just proves you know fuck all about how the courts work. This is not how any of this works.
Lol. Dude, keep it up. This is funny shit. PLEASE make this show up in court so I can laugh even harder at it.
This is not how any of this works. I mean, I know you're hilariously and totally ignorant of the law -- as your earlier comments have made clear, but watching you flail about here is just so silly. But, at least it confirms for me that you're who I thought you are. Welcome back to the site.
Funny how the headline doesn't represent the truth.
What is incorrect in the headline? Be specifici.
Judicial Watch can't even get the capital to cooperate in releasing thousands of hours of video footage of Jan 6th. Because they falsely claim the "peoples house" video footage is not of public record.
This has nothing to do with the article.
The Jan 6th commission was a biased chosen body of anti-trumpers, chosen by Nanci Pelosi. That is a fact.
This has nothing to do with the article.
So, from the headline of this article, the opening statement, up to the end of this article misrepresents the facts and doesn't acknowledge that this is anything other than a witchhunt.
The article is not about that.
Why? because it fits Techdirts narrative to pitch patriots, veterans, families, and especially Trump supporters as an enemy.
Did you not even bother to read the fact that we've criticized the requests as overbroad?
Are you so full of your own shit that you think no one recognizes what stinks?
We aren't taking a partisan position. We have criticized the overbroad nature of the commission's requests. You know why? Because we have principles. Because we stand up for what we believe in, not like you who chooses what's right and what's wrong based on who is making the statements. That's not principled. That's sad and pathetic.
Very interesting admission here. Given that people in Tech like Jack Dorsey have a history of listening to you I dont think you want to be saying this part out loud. To imply that Tech TOS are deliberately ambiguous to prevent "bad faith actors" from 'gaming the system' is a very very very serious admission.
For someone who so into accusing other people of logical fallacies, you sure do a lot of your own. I didn't say that they create their TOS to be ambiguous. Can you not read? I said that the issue of requiring a full and detailed explanation for each moderation decision helps bad faith actors. Which is accurate.
I've screen shotted and forwarded this onto Robert Barns and a few other high-profile lawyers who like to sue BigTech. I'm sure they will love to hear that Mike Mansick admits that BigTech's TOS are written ambiguously on purpose as would any judge in a BigTech case.
Lol. I mean, seriously, thanks. I'm having a tough week and this literally gave me a huge laugh. Please do share it as widely as you can. Especially with lawyers like that. You really made my day.
I said earlier that you're easily too stupid to be responding to, but this takes it to entirely new levels of stupidity.
Lol. Did you just learn that term? Because this is not that.
And no Mike, the bill dictates how terms of service which are legal contracts are to be enforced. States have every right to dictate how contracts are drafted and enforced in their states.
No. The 1st Amendment gives sites the ability to moderate how they see fit. It is not about contracts.
Tough shit Mike! They wanted TOS to be treated as legal contracts they get the whole packaged
You are too stupid for me to go any further on this. Seriously, stop it. This is dumb even for you.
We’ve already let the fascist dickheads take endless miles. I’m tired of it. Let’s take some miles back.
I'm sure you'll be fine the next time they're in power and they use those very tools that you demanded they get for surveillance of your political enemies... and use them against you.
I am constantly amazed at how people like you don't seem to EVER consider that at some point people you like won't be in power any more.
The problem with that is that it is useful to bad faith actors who are looking to game the system. And, frankly, the majority of people who are going to be moderated... tend to be bad faith actors looking to game the system.
Either way, REQUIRING that info (even if we agree it would be useful) is blatantly unconstitutional.
It never fails to astound me at your sadistic glee in chronicling the latest ruling from the corrupt District Courts, but only if it's against voters and vote fraud.
It's weird how you insist every court ruling you disagree with is corrupt, and yet express no legal basis for claiming that other than your feelings.
I thought you guys weren't supposed to be such whiny little snowflakes.
Your article also claimed that Powell and Wood were sanctioned
On the post: Lessons Learned From Creating Good Faith Debate In A Sea Of Garbage Disinformation
Re: Re: Re: Re: Fake It Until You Make It
24 hours passed and no evidence from Koby.
Okay. Bad faith arguments noted and ignored.
On the post: Backpage Founders Trial Finally Begins
Re: Opinions
You haven’t lived it and can’t imagine how it feels - adults who choose to have sex for money are not the problem. The problem is the minor children who were sold on this site
You are correct. I have not lived it and I cannot imagine how it feels. But I am pretty confident that I would want those actually responsible -- those who engaged in the sex trafficking to be the ones who are punished for it. And I'd be concerned -- as we have seen -- when the focus is NOT on them, but rather on the tools that they used.
I'd also be concerned -- as the US government has reported -- about how after Backpage was taken down, it became much more difficult to track down and find sex traffickers, because it all migrated to overseas sites who don't cooperate -- unlike Backpage who did.
So, again, the complaint should be with the sex traffickers. The situation here, where we blame the tool makers literally makes the problem worse, and means that families who are now going through the unimaginable pain and suffering that your family went through are LESS LIKELY to get out of it.
On the post: The Role Of Confirmation Bias In Spreading Misinformation
Re: I Can See The Pattern
Hey Koby, we're still waiting for your evidence back over here: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20210903/15015047495/lessons-learned-creating-good-faith-debate-se a-garbage-disinformation.shtml#c277
On the post: Lessons Learned From Creating Good Faith Debate In A Sea Of Garbage Disinformation
Re: Re: Re: Re: Fake It Until You Make It
Tick tock. Tick Tock. Koby.
On the post: GoDaddy Reignites Debate Over Infrastructure Layer Moderation By Banning Texas Anti-Abortion Snitch Site
Re: Slippery Slope - my ass
Yeah, that's why I said it's more of a concern if there weren't competitive options. You seem to have skipped that part in a rush to complain.
On the post: Lessons Learned From Creating Good Faith Debate In A Sea Of Garbage Disinformation
Re: Re: Re: Fake It Until You Make It
Techdirt here would have been censored for several months if subjected to the Vaccine Talk rules regarding high speed internet availability back in 2018.
No. We wouldn't. For multiple reasons. First, we can actually back up what we say with evidence. We can show why the maps are wrong. With evidence. Which is all that this group is asking for.
Second, the rules on disinformation are mostly targeted at spewing disinformation that might actually harm someone. No one is physically harmed by false broadband map information
Personally, I don't think Techdirt or anyone else should get censored because they disagree with some official FCC coverage map, or any other government study.
If someone doesn't want us posting in their group, that's on them. It's not censorship. It's on them.
Indeed, there was no counter "study" available to refute the FCC for some time, certainly not within 24 hours.
You don't need "a study." You could easily present refuting evidence -- such as example on the broadband map that claim coverage, and showing that said coverage is not available. That's evidence.
Trying to eliminate bad faith arguments by saying that you can't contradict the official government study is in bad faith.
You're making up the claim that you can't contradict government officials. That was never a part of this.
The only "bad faith" argument here is you. You're making shit up. So here, Koby: provide some fucking evidence to back up your false claim that Vaccine Talk only accepts "official gov't studies". You have 24 hours or you've admitted that you're acting in bad faith.
On the post: Lessons Learned From Creating Good Faith Debate In A Sea Of Garbage Disinformation
Re: Fake It Until You Make It
This sounds like a way for government to control debate.
Saying you need to present evidence for claims? No, it does not, Koby. It does not at all.
Take, for example, the bs FCC wireless coverage maps.
Huh?
Many knew that it was bogus. Providing a citation to refute otherwise within 24 hours might not be possible.
What?
Sometimes, we "officially" prove what we thought was true only months afterward.
The only point here is that people need to show evidence to post about it. Your broadband map example has nothing to do with that, and none of this has anything to do with "government" controlling the debate.
Koby, seriously: this kind of nonsense comment makes you look really fucking stupid.
On the post: Texas Legislature Says You Can't Teach About Racism In Schools, But Social Media Sites Must Host Holocaust Denialism
Re: Re: Duh!
If the author of the contract intentionally makes it ambiguous that is evidence of bad faith and unfair dealing
I just want to emphasize here, that this is not how any of this works, and more importantly, there is nothing "ambiguous" about every terms that has a clause along the lines of "if we believe you have violated our rules, we may remove your content" and every such website has such terms.
Chozen is trying to (1) misrepresent what I said and (2) pretend that what I did not actually say somehow invalidates contracts. Both points are wrong.
I did not say that they make the terms purposefully ambiguous, because they do not. I was responding to someone who talked about whether the NOTIFICATIONS (not the rules) would be specific about what was violated. And I noted that that's a scenario where there are problems with being too specific in explaining the reasons for the takedown because it enables dishonest assholes (such as Chozen) to use that info to try to continue to be a bad actor.
That is wholly different than the question of whether or not the terms of use themselves are ambiguous (they are not -- every site has the right to remove any content they themselves deem inappropriate for the site).
And the rest of Chozen's nonsense is just bad faith trolling from an extremely bad faith troll.
On the post: Texas Legislature Says You Can't Teach About Racism In Schools, But Social Media Sites Must Host Holocaust Denialism
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It is how the law works.
No. It is not. Not even close. You've already admitted both in writing and in what you say that you have an active Googler's knowledge level of the law -- meaning that you misunderstand fairly basic concepts and engage in motivated reasoning to pretend the law says what it absolutely does not. Your lack of knowledge and experience in how courts actually work shines through. You are an ignorant fool, acting over confident to cover your very clear ignorance.
California judges will bend heaven and earth to protect big tech.
Lol. This just proves you know fuck all about how the courts work. This is not how any of this works.
On the post: Texas Legislature Says You Can't Teach About Racism In Schools, But Social Media Sites Must Host Holocaust Denialism
Re: Re: Re: Re:
That's not how defamation law works, Chozen.
On the post: Texas Legislature Says You Can't Teach About Racism In Schools, But Social Media Sites Must Host Holocaust Denialism
Re: Re: Duh!
Lol. Dude, keep it up. This is funny shit. PLEASE make this show up in court so I can laugh even harder at it.
This is not how any of this works. I mean, I know you're hilariously and totally ignorant of the law -- as your earlier comments have made clear, but watching you flail about here is just so silly. But, at least it confirms for me that you're who I thought you are. Welcome back to the site.
On the post: Texas Legislature Says You Can't Teach About Racism In Schools, But Social Media Sites Must Host Holocaust Denialism
Re: Re:
Yeah. All evidence points to the idea that Chozen is simply the new identity of a long term troll.
On the post: GOP Hollowly Threatens To 'Shut Down' Telecom Companies For Cooperating With Legal January 6 Inquiries
Re: Another trash Jan 6th article by Techdirt
Funny how the headline doesn't represent the truth.
What is incorrect in the headline? Be specifici.
Judicial Watch can't even get the capital to cooperate in releasing thousands of hours of video footage of Jan 6th. Because they falsely claim the "peoples house" video footage is not of public record.
This has nothing to do with the article.
The Jan 6th commission was a biased chosen body of anti-trumpers, chosen by Nanci Pelosi. That is a fact.
This has nothing to do with the article.
So, from the headline of this article, the opening statement, up to the end of this article misrepresents the facts and doesn't acknowledge that this is anything other than a witchhunt.
The article is not about that.
Why? because it fits Techdirts narrative to pitch patriots, veterans, families, and especially Trump supporters as an enemy.
Did you not even bother to read the fact that we've criticized the requests as overbroad?
Are you so full of your own shit that you think no one recognizes what stinks?
We aren't taking a partisan position. We have criticized the overbroad nature of the commission's requests. You know why? Because we have principles. Because we stand up for what we believe in, not like you who chooses what's right and what's wrong based on who is making the statements. That's not principled. That's sad and pathetic.
On the post: Texas Legislature Says You Can't Teach About Racism In Schools, But Social Media Sites Must Host Holocaust Denialism
Re: Re: Re: Intersting
Very interesting admission here. Given that people in Tech like Jack Dorsey have a history of listening to you I dont think you want to be saying this part out loud. To imply that Tech TOS are deliberately ambiguous to prevent "bad faith actors" from 'gaming the system' is a very very very serious admission.
For someone who so into accusing other people of logical fallacies, you sure do a lot of your own. I didn't say that they create their TOS to be ambiguous. Can you not read? I said that the issue of requiring a full and detailed explanation for each moderation decision helps bad faith actors. Which is accurate.
I've screen shotted and forwarded this onto Robert Barns and a few other high-profile lawyers who like to sue BigTech. I'm sure they will love to hear that Mike Mansick admits that BigTech's TOS are written ambiguously on purpose as would any judge in a BigTech case.
Lol. I mean, seriously, thanks. I'm having a tough week and this literally gave me a huge laugh. Please do share it as widely as you can. Especially with lawyers like that. You really made my day.
I said earlier that you're easily too stupid to be responding to, but this takes it to entirely new levels of stupidity.
On the post: Texas Legislature Says You Can't Teach About Racism In Schools, But Social Media Sites Must Host Holocaust Denialism
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I Read the Act
Mike flat out lied or is too legally ignorant to understand what he was reading.
This from the guy who has misstated the law over and over and over again and has repeatedly lied here?
On the post: Texas Legislature Says You Can't Teach About Racism In Schools, But Social Media Sites Must Host Holocaust Denialism
Re: Re: Re: I Read the Act
Oh motte and baily much?
Lol. Did you just learn that term? Because this is not that.
And no Mike, the bill dictates how terms of service which are legal contracts are to be enforced. States have every right to dictate how contracts are drafted and enforced in their states.
No. The 1st Amendment gives sites the ability to moderate how they see fit. It is not about contracts.
Tough shit Mike! They wanted TOS to be treated as legal contracts they get the whole packaged
You are too stupid for me to go any further on this. Seriously, stop it. This is dumb even for you.
On the post: House Committee Investigating January 6th Capitol Invasion Goes On Social Media Fishing Expedition; Companies Should Resist
Re: Re: Re: Re:
We’ve already let the fascist dickheads take endless miles. I’m tired of it. Let’s take some miles back.
I'm sure you'll be fine the next time they're in power and they use those very tools that you demanded they get for surveillance of your political enemies... and use them against you.
I am constantly amazed at how people like you don't seem to EVER consider that at some point people you like won't be in power any more.
On the post: Facebook Promises To Distinguish Takedowns From Governments; Whether They're For Illegal Content, Or Merely Site Rules Violations
Re:
Bad headline. Now changed.
On the post: Texas Legislature Says You Can't Teach About Racism In Schools, But Social Media Sites Must Host Holocaust Denialism
Re:
The problem with that is that it is useful to bad faith actors who are looking to game the system. And, frankly, the majority of people who are going to be moderated... tend to be bad faith actors looking to game the system.
Either way, REQUIRING that info (even if we agree it would be useful) is blatantly unconstitutional.
On the post: More Pro-Trump Lawyers Sanctioned For BS Election Fraud Lawsuits
Re: Glee
It never fails to astound me at your sadistic glee in chronicling the latest ruling from the corrupt District Courts, but only if it's against voters and vote fraud.
It's weird how you insist every court ruling you disagree with is corrupt, and yet express no legal basis for claiming that other than your feelings.
I thought you guys weren't supposed to be such whiny little snowflakes.
Your article also claimed that Powell and Wood were sanctioned
Yoo hoo. https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20210827/16095547447/sidney-powell-lin-wood-bunch-other-trump-lovi ng-lawyers-hit-with-sanctions-michigan.shtml
Next >>