It is literally insane how informative and right you can be on copyright issues, but then flip and be completely crazy when talking about Trump or litigants like Devin Nunes. Nunes will succeed just like the Covington Kid has done. It's coming.
I wish you would have more articles about copyright tyranny and NO articles about Trump or individuals who are fighting slander and libel (which you are against, meaning you are totally cool with slander and libel if you don't like the people being slandered and libeled.) It makes you look stupid. Utterly.
And blind to boot. I hope that you somehow drop your nonsense and concentrate on copyright abuses among other things. An extra bonus would be that you strongly support Nunes in suing the fock out of slanderous crazed lunatics that don't care about truth.
What the hell is a neo-Nazi? Apparently, it's just someone you don't like. This guy is a neo-Nazi. That woman is a neo-Nazi. These labels have real consequences that cause financial damage. Getting fired, etc.
So why would you write something defending hurting people economically by slandering them and then pretending that there are no grounds for sueing fascists who call those they don't agree with neo-Nazis?
I mean where are your principles, man? You obviously aren't for free speech. If someone says something you don't agree with it's time to cause them to suffer, to be destroyed.
And you crow from the Heavens that their law suit to recover real financial damages was quelled? What kind of a person would want that for dissonant ideas?
That is the obvious definition of a totalitarian. You are one, bud. You are one.
Why would you call a Deep State operative a whistle blower? By the way, there is no part of the whistle blower law that requires a "whistle blower" to be anonymous. In fact, the "whistle blower" laws protect a "whistle blower" from persecution, therefore identifying him/her/it is common and expected. Why the difference in policy behavior in this one case?
Why are you so prejudiced and dumb, Mike?
Trying to figure why Tech Dirt writes these anti-Free Speech pieces all the time.
Guess they think that those who have conclusions differing from theirs are spewing "bile," as if bile mattered. It's all free speech.
If you get a phone line installed, the phone company doesn't get to regulate who may speak and who may not.
Curiously, Tech Dirt comes out again and again against this obvious fact, claiming that some "boomers" or whoever Tech Dirt doesn't like this week are deserving of censorship and suppression.
Thus does Tech Dirt undermine most of its writings. I'm getting to the point of thinking that it must be some kind of brain fungus the Tech Dirt writers are suffering from. It's a pity.
Oh, and PS, it's purty obvious that Tech Dirt favorite Hillary was indeed running an outside server in order to hide her pay for play activities. Nothing else makes any kind of sense. Yet, Tech Dirt believes coming to obvious conclusions like that are "bile."
Is Hill on your board of directors or something? Who knows? And who cares? Many people know nonsense when they read it.
So if i try to start fist fights on the White House lawn, but I am bona-fide then some judge somewhere will determine if the Administrative branch can exert control over the "bona-fide" person? What if they "bona-fide" pulls a gun? What if the person is not "bona=fide?"
Perhaps if the person works for say, Tech Dirt. Well, that's not "bona=fide" according to our Judge-rulers.
The world you seem with all your little heart to want? You are one of those people who just think it will never apply to them. It will.
Only bona-fide people are allowed to comment here.
Netflix subscriber losses are a direct result of its abhorrent Social Justice Worker content and wokeness.
I recently took a 30-day free trial after a several year absense and right away the AI put me completely off. But then all the NetFlix imprinted new stuff made me wary.
After reading an interview of the writer/creator of Damnation a Netflix series, I decided to try it.
I quickly found that in 1931 in the Midwest all women knew better than all men, nanny granny whorehouse madams forced middle aged men to drop trou for her personal examination (along with throwing whiskey on her client's privates), and that only black prostitutes can read (white prostitutes cannot).
And all black prostitutes in Iowa in 1931 look like Beyonce. And have snarky attitudes that include screaming c***** at the top of their lungs to a white client who had just murdered a person.
"There are consequences to uttering speech others find objectionable. Those consequences are not legal causes of action."
So Tech Dirt writers like Tim & Mike are for "consequences" for uttering speech?
Kind of puts the lie to the entire article's POV. Kind of puts the lie to Tech Dirt itself.
Guess when your site crosses the rapidly changing line and suffers "consequences" you might finally understand. Or maybe not.
Probably not, if one were to judge by the articles you write about free speech censorship issues. Not a clue would be the best way to describe both you guys. Ah well, still good on other things.
Just the huge blind spot when it comes to the 1st Amendment.
So let me get this clear: you are against Free Speech?
Else why you have your panties in a bundle because somebody wrote for a "white supremicist" site?
So in other words, if it's approved speech then you are good? Mike, you missed te boat completely on the banning and censoring of conservatives and now you are just an out and out fascist with our idea that free speech is only popular speech.
Such a shame on such a great site, except of course for every article you write.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: How does it go again? Oh right. Fuck your fe
The problem is that you think those things you emotionally and subjectively label with a series of social justice warrior scare words are universal and thus all should be banned because we live in a decent society.
Freedom of speech allows repugnant speech because what was "repugnant" 5 years ago may not be as society grows and changes. Banning things freezes the society in amber. Society becomes fossilized and repressive.
People who can't speak freely are not free people. All because you deem something you personally believe is repugnant.
Eventually, you realize when they come for you, too, that your idea of decent is another, more powerful entity's idea of repugnant.
Re: Re: Re: Re: How does it go again? Oh right. Fuck your feelin
Being exposed to speech you don't happen to like is what America is about. It's a free speech country.
If you don't like the speech, don't read the speech. Nothing is preventing you from turning the television off or not watching that video. You have the choice to read the or listen to the speech or not. Yet, you want to prevent others having that same choice.
And you reasoning is that the mob agrees with you?
The very definition of tyranny by the majority and exactly the thing that those who wrote the Constitution were afraid of. Why? Because they knew from history that democracies turn into mob rule, but republics protect the rights of the minority. Central to that is freedom of speech.
All these comments in this area of the thread are the same: the mob doesn't like something or the mob feels uncomfortable with some speech and therefore the mob should have the right to prevent that "they" don't like from being put out there.
It's tyranny. And it boomerangs on the people in the mob. Sooner or later.
Sweet child of mine, you just don't seem to be able to understand. It's too simple I guess for your complicated mind.
Let's say that I am Granny GoodThink. I open up a twitter account and am forced to sign a ridiculously nonsensical ToS cooked up by fools who call themselves attorneys, but which means nothing at all except "we can do anything we want to, boy."
Then I post my cookie recipes on twitter.
All is well until some soyboy in San Francisco decides that one of my recipes is racist and bans me.
Yes, my free speech has just been abridged. Why? Because twitter is now the Public Square due to its monopoly. I have been effectively censored.
It would be exactly like this:
Hi. it's Granny GoodThink again. This time, I call up the phone company and order a phone line. It is installed. I start making phone calls and sharing my tasty and homey recipes with people far and wide.
Some soyboy is monitoring my phone calls to make sure that none of my speech on my phone is racist. He decides that one of my recipes is racist (not the same recipe, a different one). He then disconnects my telephone.
In both cases my freedom of speech has been abridged. There is absolutely no difference. I can't go to another phone company. But even if I could, the other phone company likely would have maybe 10 people on it.
This is apparently your point: that if i can go to some other service that means everything is happy sunny since I have the freedom to say my speech to 2 or 3 people instead of 2 billion.
You really need to think this through. Freedom of speech is coming to social media monopolies. It's going to happen. The reason? Because social media is censoring primarily conservative speech and thought. And that is un-American, but more than that: the 1st Amendment stipulates that freedom of speech and related freedoms are not given they are a part of humanity, and not to be abridged.
The reason for this is obvious: the next ban will be you, child. You will be banned sooner or later. Just like all totalitarian regimes do. First they came for Granny Good Think and I said nothing, etc., etc., then they come for little old you.
I'm tired of explaining basic concepts of freedom to snarky children. I'll look at the remaining comment replies in my inbox and then I'm out. This should be enough, though it should not have to be explained at all to any American. You should know better.
Re: Re: How does it go again? Oh right. Fuck your feelings
Bro. Or should I say Bruh. You should take a civics class and learn about the Commons. It doesn't matter if it's a monopoly or a government, bro.
The reason? Because your idiotic "recommendation" that everyone who is censored by gigantic monopolies should just dance around the Maypole and then go invent a competing service is obvious just whining like a bitch.
No one with a brain would seriously believe that I or you or anyone including your cat could just move from Twitter or Facebooks'billions of users to their own social media site?
Are you ok, bruh? You sound like a moron with every post. You surely cannot believe a word you say.
It doesn't matter what yoiu see or don't see, nor does it matter that you personally never have your own views censored. Tech companies are overwhelmingly liberal and are censoring and shadow banning ideas that they don't think are correct, mostly coming from what is known today as the right.
Because Brietbart caved to a fake smear by left-wing crazies proves nothing except that Brietbart caved.
The facts are clear: left leaning tech censors are using their monopoly powers to censor free speech, at this moment that is pirmarily right-wing free speech. All censorship of any type is wrong. Today it is the right. Tomorrow it could be you, and probably will be.
On the post: How Years Of Copyright Maximalism Is Now Killing Pop Music
Insane
It is literally insane how informative and right you can be on copyright issues, but then flip and be completely crazy when talking about Trump or litigants like Devin Nunes. Nunes will succeed just like the Covington Kid has done. It's coming.
I wish you would have more articles about copyright tyranny and NO articles about Trump or individuals who are fighting slander and libel (which you are against, meaning you are totally cool with slander and libel if you don't like the people being slandered and libeled.) It makes you look stupid. Utterly.
And blind to boot. I hope that you somehow drop your nonsense and concentrate on copyright abuses among other things. An extra bonus would be that you strongly support Nunes in suing the fock out of slanderous crazed lunatics that don't care about truth.
On the post: Lawyer With Neo-Nazi Ties Loses Defamation Lawsuit Against SPLC For Calling Him A Neo-Nazi
Neo Nazi Nonsense
What the hell is a neo-Nazi? Apparently, it's just someone you don't like. This guy is a neo-Nazi. That woman is a neo-Nazi. These labels have real consequences that cause financial damage. Getting fired, etc.
So why would you write something defending hurting people economically by slandering them and then pretending that there are no grounds for sueing fascists who call those they don't agree with neo-Nazis?
I mean where are your principles, man? You obviously aren't for free speech. If someone says something you don't agree with it's time to cause them to suffer, to be destroyed.
And you crow from the Heavens that their law suit to recover real financial damages was quelled? What kind of a person would want that for dissonant ideas?
That is the obvious definition of a totalitarian. You are one, bud. You are one.
On the post: Report: Devin Nunes' Aide Going Around Leaking Ukraine Call Whistleblower's Name
Surely You Jest
Why would you call a Deep State operative a whistle blower? By the way, there is no part of the whistle blower law that requires a "whistle blower" to be anonymous. In fact, the "whistle blower" laws protect a "whistle blower" from persecution, therefore identifying him/her/it is common and expected. Why the difference in policy behavior in this one case?
Why are you so prejudiced and dumb, Mike?
On the post: DOJ And DNI's Attempt To Bury Whistleblower Report Yet Another Indication Of The Official Channels' Uselessness
Lack of Self Awareness
The lack of self awareness is stunning.
You think that a CIA operative trying a slo-mo coup is a whistleblower?
The "rules" changed to admit 2nd or 3rd hand accounts unlike ever before ever?
If John Kiriakou, a real whistleblower, says this person ain't a whistelblower? That's good enough for me.
Why isn't it on your radar? Are you willfully ignorant or just ignorant? I can't tell.
Help me understand how you wrote this brain fart.
On the post: The Ellen Show Issues Copyright Takedown On Transformative Video Commenting On Her Friendship With President Bush
Hypocracy Much?
And not a word in your article about the exact same issue of Trump's use of Nickleback?
Wow, what a blind man.
On the post: Another Day, Another Major Disinformation Effort Facebook Thinks Is Ok
Tech Dirt Stands Solidly Against Free Speech
Trying to figure why Tech Dirt writes these anti-Free Speech pieces all the time.
Guess they think that those who have conclusions differing from theirs are spewing "bile," as if bile mattered. It's all free speech.
If you get a phone line installed, the phone company doesn't get to regulate who may speak and who may not.
Curiously, Tech Dirt comes out again and again against this obvious fact, claiming that some "boomers" or whoever Tech Dirt doesn't like this week are deserving of censorship and suppression.
Thus does Tech Dirt undermine most of its writings. I'm getting to the point of thinking that it must be some kind of brain fungus the Tech Dirt writers are suffering from. It's a pity.
Oh, and PS, it's purty obvious that Tech Dirt favorite Hillary was indeed running an outside server in order to hide her pay for play activities. Nothing else makes any kind of sense. Yet, Tech Dirt believes coming to obvious conclusions like that are "bile."
Is Hill on your board of directors or something? Who knows? And who cares? Many people know nonsense when they read it.
On the post: Judge Orders White House To Restore Reporter's Press Pass It Illegally Removed
Two WORDS
Kritarchy (rulel by judges). Bona-fide.
So if i try to start fist fights on the White House lawn, but I am bona-fide then some judge somewhere will determine if the Administrative branch can exert control over the "bona-fide" person? What if they "bona-fide" pulls a gun? What if the person is not "bona=fide?"
Perhaps if the person works for say, Tech Dirt. Well, that's not "bona=fide" according to our Judge-rulers.
The world you seem with all your little heart to want? You are one of those people who just think it will never apply to them. It will.
Only bona-fide people are allowed to comment here.
On the post: Pinterest's Way Of Dealing With Anti-Vax Nonsense And Scams Is Only Possible Because Of Section 230
Nonsense
Any writer who would include "Anti-vax nonsense" in the title of his article, has already made it clear that he has nothing of any value to say.
On the post: White House Once Again Circulating A Draft Executive Order On Social Media Bias
What Kind?
Of imbecile would start off his article doubting that social media is anti-free speech totalitarian banning going on?
So Mitch McConnell gets banned? And Tulsi Gabbard gets throttled? Both obvious actions that happened.
Are you:
I truly can't figure out which.
Why would you support fascist censorship?
You don't think they will come for you?
I sincerely do not understand how someone who seems smart at other times is so utterly stupid when it comes to this.
On the post: Netflix Sees First Subscriber Losses Ever
Wokeness
Netflix subscriber losses are a direct result of its abhorrent Social Justice Worker content and wokeness.
I recently took a 30-day free trial after a several year absense and right away the AI put me completely off. But then all the NetFlix imprinted new stuff made me wary.
After reading an interview of the writer/creator of Damnation a Netflix series, I decided to try it.
I quickly found that in 1931 in the Midwest all women knew better than all men, nanny granny whorehouse madams forced middle aged men to drop trou for her personal examination (along with throwing whiskey on her client's privates), and that only black prostitutes can read (white prostitutes cannot).
And all black prostitutes in Iowa in 1931 look like Beyonce. And have snarky attitudes that include screaming c***** at the top of their lungs to a white client who had just murdered a person.
It was 12 minutes into the episode.
This is why subscribers are leaving Netflix.
On the post: SPLC Asks Court To Toss Proud Boy Founder's Defamation Lawsuit By Asking 'Where's The Lie?'
Consequences of Punishing Free Speech
"There are consequences to uttering speech others find objectionable. Those consequences are not legal causes of action."
So Tech Dirt writers like Tim & Mike are for "consequences" for uttering speech?
Kind of puts the lie to the entire article's POV. Kind of puts the lie to Tech Dirt itself.
Guess when your site crosses the rapidly changing line and suffers "consequences" you might finally understand. Or maybe not.
Probably not, if one were to judge by the articles you write about free speech censorship issues. Not a clue would be the best way to describe both you guys. Ah well, still good on other things.
Just the huge blind spot when it comes to the 1st Amendment.
On the post: Guy Pushing Hawley's 'Viewpoint Neutrality' Concept In The Media Used To Write For White Supremacist Site
Clarity
So let me get this clear: you are against Free Speech?
Else why you have your panties in a bundle because somebody wrote for a "white supremicist" site?
So in other words, if it's approved speech then you are good? Mike, you missed te boat completely on the banning and censoring of conservatives and now you are just an out and out fascist with our idea that free speech is only popular speech.
Such a shame on such a great site, except of course for every article you write.
On the post: White House Sets Up Echo Chamber For Complaints About Social Media Bias Against Conservatives
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: How does it go again? Oh right. Fuck your fe
The problem is that you think those things you emotionally and subjectively label with a series of social justice warrior scare words are universal and thus all should be banned because we live in a decent society.
Freedom of speech allows repugnant speech because what was "repugnant" 5 years ago may not be as society grows and changes. Banning things freezes the society in amber. Society becomes fossilized and repressive.
People who can't speak freely are not free people. All because you deem something you personally believe is repugnant.
Eventually, you realize when they come for you, too, that your idea of decent is another, more powerful entity's idea of repugnant.
On the post: White House Sets Up Echo Chamber For Complaints About Social Media Bias Against Conservatives
Re: Re: Re: Re: How does it go again? Oh right. Fuck your feelin
Being exposed to speech you don't happen to like is what America is about. It's a free speech country.
If you don't like the speech, don't read the speech. Nothing is preventing you from turning the television off or not watching that video. You have the choice to read the or listen to the speech or not. Yet, you want to prevent others having that same choice.
And you reasoning is that the mob agrees with you?
The very definition of tyranny by the majority and exactly the thing that those who wrote the Constitution were afraid of. Why? Because they knew from history that democracies turn into mob rule, but republics protect the rights of the minority. Central to that is freedom of speech.
All these comments in this area of the thread are the same: the mob doesn't like something or the mob feels uncomfortable with some speech and therefore the mob should have the right to prevent that "they" don't like from being put out there.
It's tyranny. And it boomerangs on the people in the mob. Sooner or later.
On the post: White House Sets Up Echo Chamber For Complaints About Social Media Bias Against Conservatives
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Free Speech is not for nice speech or popular speech. It is for unpopular speech even hate speech, as the Supreme Court has ruled over and over again.
Saying something is abhorrent is emotional and subjective. Your abhorrent speech is another's kind speech.
Saying that something is so abhorrent no one would "have" you is totalitarian at its heart.
On the post: White House Sets Up Echo Chamber For Complaints About Social Media Bias Against Conservatives
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Sweet child of mine, you just don't seem to be able to understand. It's too simple I guess for your complicated mind.
Let's say that I am Granny GoodThink. I open up a twitter account and am forced to sign a ridiculously nonsensical ToS cooked up by fools who call themselves attorneys, but which means nothing at all except "we can do anything we want to, boy."
Then I post my cookie recipes on twitter.
All is well until some soyboy in San Francisco decides that one of my recipes is racist and bans me.
Yes, my free speech has just been abridged. Why? Because twitter is now the Public Square due to its monopoly. I have been effectively censored.
It would be exactly like this:
Hi. it's Granny GoodThink again. This time, I call up the phone company and order a phone line. It is installed. I start making phone calls and sharing my tasty and homey recipes with people far and wide.
Some soyboy is monitoring my phone calls to make sure that none of my speech on my phone is racist. He decides that one of my recipes is racist (not the same recipe, a different one). He then disconnects my telephone.
In both cases my freedom of speech has been abridged. There is absolutely no difference. I can't go to another phone company. But even if I could, the other phone company likely would have maybe 10 people on it.
This is apparently your point: that if i can go to some other service that means everything is happy sunny since I have the freedom to say my speech to 2 or 3 people instead of 2 billion.
You really need to think this through. Freedom of speech is coming to social media monopolies. It's going to happen. The reason? Because social media is censoring primarily conservative speech and thought. And that is un-American, but more than that: the 1st Amendment stipulates that freedom of speech and related freedoms are not given they are a part of humanity, and not to be abridged.
The reason for this is obvious: the next ban will be you, child. You will be banned sooner or later. Just like all totalitarian regimes do. First they came for Granny Good Think and I said nothing, etc., etc., then they come for little old you.
I'm tired of explaining basic concepts of freedom to snarky children. I'll look at the remaining comment replies in my inbox and then I'm out. This should be enough, though it should not have to be explained at all to any American. You should know better.
On the post: White House Sets Up Echo Chamber For Complaints About Social Media Bias Against Conservatives
Re: Re: How does it go again? Oh right. Fuck your feelings
Bro. Or should I say Bruh. You should take a civics class and learn about the Commons. It doesn't matter if it's a monopoly or a government, bro.
The reason? Because your idiotic "recommendation" that everyone who is censored by gigantic monopolies should just dance around the Maypole and then go invent a competing service is obvious just whining like a bitch.
No one with a brain would seriously believe that I or you or anyone including your cat could just move from Twitter or Facebooks'billions of users to their own social media site?
Are you ok, bruh? You sound like a moron with every post. You surely cannot believe a word you say.
On the post: White House Sets Up Echo Chamber For Complaints About Social Media Bias Against Conservatives
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So let me understand: You are seriously asking where did free speech on Twitter go when free speech on Twitter is banned?
Um, dude. Free speech was banned on Twitter.
I mean, are you that stupid or do you just play a stupid fool on TV?
I'm godsmacked that you don't seem to be able to understand rampant censorship of free speech on social media.
It's what the article we are commenting upon is about!!!
On the post: White House Sets Up Echo Chamber For Complaints About Social Media Bias Against Conservatives
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Thanks for playing.
I will try to help you out.......
There is no jack in your house.
Does that help you out?
A jack has not a thing to do with standing.
Did you really need me to tell you that there is no jack in your house? Wow. You are sounding more and more retarded with every post.
I recommend you go back about 20 comment replies to the part where analogies are explained. Good luck!
On the post: White House Sets Up Echo Chamber For Complaints About Social Media Bias Against Conservatives
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It doesn't matter what yoiu see or don't see, nor does it matter that you personally never have your own views censored. Tech companies are overwhelmingly liberal and are censoring and shadow banning ideas that they don't think are correct, mostly coming from what is known today as the right.
Because Brietbart caved to a fake smear by left-wing crazies proves nothing except that Brietbart caved.
The facts are clear: left leaning tech censors are using their monopoly powers to censor free speech, at this moment that is pirmarily right-wing free speech. All censorship of any type is wrong. Today it is the right. Tomorrow it could be you, and probably will be.
Next >>