That article doesn't say anything different than this one. It doesn't present any proof of 5G problems. It's just another airline saying it will delay flights to US airports over this unproven "threat."
Lol. It's almost as if I don't come in with any specific preconceived notion and focus on what actually seems to be most effective/reasonable given the situation, data, and details. But that particular AC has a strawman Mike that he insists is the real Mike, no matter how many times it gets knocked down.
... this result... being...? The blocking of a bad bill because people spoke up in protest? I'm confused.
(Not to mention that the key mechanism behind SOPA -- gov't orders to block entire websites, is most prominently practiced in communist China, but okay...)
Adding an update here in the comments as well: I'm told that Elizabeth Warren is NOT supporting this bill, and there was some sort of clerical error that had her listed as a co-sponsor. It should be removed soon...
I'm not one to panic no matter what, but no, this bill is still unlikely to go anywhere, which makes it that much more bizarre that Warren would sign on.
You keep getting surprised by the low opinion that the general public has developed of Section 230
The general public has no real opinion of 230, and among those that do, like you they seem to base it on blatantly false information that they believe to be true in spite of actual evidence.
believe that a repeal will end the ability of social media to moderate based upon on political beliefs.
Except that's wrong. As we've told you. And as the courts have said. The 1st Amendment protects that.
This implies that there are good things about NFTs. There aren’t.
That's one opinion. Not objective fact.
I have said that I think the vast majority of the NFT world is nonsense and scams, but that there is something interesting at the core that is worth exploring. You can disagree with that -- many do. But I find it bizarre how quickly some people are to insist that because some of it is bad, all of it is irredeemable, when there are some interesting projects that are worth understanding.
Seriously, the other week you lambasted Samsung for their NFT TV plans.
Yeah, because they were nonsense.
You can’t see how a “decentralized governance model for sport team ownership” is the same level of fucking stupid?
Yeah, as much as I like reading (and commenting on) this site, these recent pro-NFT articles showing up is…concerning, to say the least.
Can I ask what you mean about "these recent pro-NFT articles"? There is this one and... what else? I ran a small experiment with NFTs and highlighted my plan to write a more in-depth paper on NFTs, which is not going to be pure boosterism and was quite clear on that point.
I don't believe we've had any other such posts.
This one presents one possible vision of NFTs that I thought was interesting and worth discussing.
He can't back it up because he believes in a nonsense strawman. I've said that web3 and NFTs are absolutely chock full of nonsense and scams, but that it's worth exploring the little bit of it that is interesting at the core, and from which something interesting might be possible.
But this particular commenter is not at all interested in nuance or understanding and just wants to shit on me because he can't recognize that there might be a nuanced take. I mean, I've responded to him in the past, and it doesn't matter, because he keeps lying about my position. It's pathetic.
Re: 'Oh no, not the bramble patch Mr Baker' said the Facebook
FWIW, when I presented that to Baker, he insisted it's not accurate, because Facebook wants "reform" not a repeal of 230, which is just a galaxy brain level take.
Hmm, who should I believe? Facebook and some fucking hack from the libertarian shill org that is the Cato Institute, or the harassment victim?
Hmm. Didn't read, did you? In the article, Will is citing the victim and highlighting what they said, noting that it contradicts FB (and the various reporters). So "believing" the victim means, believing Will.
Also, what's with the nonsense "shill" talk? Can you respond to the points? Clearly not since you didn't even read it and seem to think that Will is disagreeing with the victim.
On the post: Devin Nunes, CEO Of Trump's TRUTH Social, Confirms That 'Free Speech' Social Media Will Be HEAVILY Moderated
Re: Heavily Moderated > Heavily Censored
Social media platforms, by contrast, have been criticized for their removal of content based upon political correctness.
Bullshit, Koby.
Stop lying.
On the post: Airline CEOs Freak Out Over 5G Despite Limited Evidence Of Real World Harm
Re: Quit your bs, 5g is an issue
That article doesn't say anything different than this one. It doesn't present any proof of 5G problems. It's just another airline saying it will delay flights to US airports over this unproven "threat."
On the post: Totally Bogus DMCA Takedowns From Giant Publishers Completely Nuke Book Review Blog Off The Internet
Re: Re:
The use of federal law in the form of the DMCA, making it "the state" that is creating this forced takedown is, yes, very much censorship.
On the post: DirecTV Finally Dumps OAN, Limiting The Conspiracy And Propaganda Channel's Reach
Re: Stunning
DirecTV doesn't have a Techdirt channel. Are they censoring my speech?
On the post: States' 3rd Amended Antitrust Complaint Against Google Looks A Lot More Damning
Re:
Lol. It's almost as if I don't come in with any specific preconceived notion and focus on what actually seems to be most effective/reasonable given the situation, data, and details. But that particular AC has a strawman Mike that he insists is the real Mike, no matter how many times it gets knocked down.
On the post: Remembering The Fight Against SOPA 10 Years Later... And What It Means For Today
Re: Capitalism is the root of the problem
... this result... being...? The blocking of a bad bill because people spoke up in protest? I'm confused.
(Not to mention that the key mechanism behind SOPA -- gov't orders to block entire websites, is most prominently practiced in communist China, but okay...)
On the post: [UPDATE] Elizabeth Warren Is NOT Cosponsoring A Bill To Repeal 230
Update
Adding an update here in the comments as well: I'm told that Elizabeth Warren is NOT supporting this bill, and there was some sort of clerical error that had her listed as a co-sponsor. It should be removed soon...
On the post: [UPDATE] Elizabeth Warren Is NOT Cosponsoring A Bill To Repeal 230
Re: Re:
I'm not one to panic no matter what, but no, this bill is still unlikely to go anywhere, which makes it that much more bizarre that Warren would sign on.
On the post: [UPDATE] Elizabeth Warren Is NOT Cosponsoring A Bill To Repeal 230
Re: Aligned Interests
You keep getting surprised by the low opinion that the general public has developed of Section 230
The general public has no real opinion of 230, and among those that do, like you they seem to base it on blatantly false information that they believe to be true in spite of actual evidence.
believe that a repeal will end the ability of social media to moderate based upon on political beliefs.
Except that's wrong. As we've told you. And as the courts have said. The 1st Amendment protects that.
On the post: The Future Of Sports Can Be Changed By NFTs, Virtual Reality, And DAOs
Re: Re: Re:
This implies that there are good things about NFTs. There aren’t.
That's one opinion. Not objective fact.
I have said that I think the vast majority of the NFT world is nonsense and scams, but that there is something interesting at the core that is worth exploring. You can disagree with that -- many do. But I find it bizarre how quickly some people are to insist that because some of it is bad, all of it is irredeemable, when there are some interesting projects that are worth understanding.
Seriously, the other week you lambasted Samsung for their NFT TV plans.
Yeah, because they were nonsense.
You can’t see how a “decentralized governance model for sport team ownership” is the same level of fucking stupid?
Why is it "fucking stupid"?
On the post: The Future Of Sports Can Be Changed By NFTs, Virtual Reality, And DAOs
Re:
Yeah, as much as I like reading (and commenting on) this site, these recent pro-NFT articles showing up is…concerning, to say the least.
Can I ask what you mean about "these recent pro-NFT articles"? There is this one and... what else? I ran a small experiment with NFTs and highlighted my plan to write a more in-depth paper on NFTs, which is not going to be pure boosterism and was quite clear on that point.
I don't believe we've had any other such posts.
This one presents one possible vision of NFTs that I thought was interesting and worth discussing.
On the post: Big Tech 'Antitrust Reform' Agenda Sags, Revealing Mostly Empty Rhetoric
Re:
I'm amazed you're still believing in the strawman Mike who only exists in your head.
On the post: How To Destroy Innovation And Competition: Putting SHOP SAFE Act Into Innovation And Competition Act
Re:
There are other ways to deal with that problem that don't involve destroying large parts of how the internet works.
On the post: US Courts Realizing They Have A Judge Alan Albright Sized Problem In Waco
Re: Re: Re:
West Texas, not East. East Texas was the problem before Judge Albright took over in Waco.
On the post: Gaming Like It's 1926: Join The Fourth Annual Public Domain Game Jam
Re: Glaring Omission
I mentioned it in our original post: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20211215/16270148129/gaming-like-1926-get-ready-our-next-public-do main-game-jam.shtml
On the post: New Year's Message: The Arc Of The Moral Universe Is A Twisty Path
Re: Re: Re: Re:
He can't back it up because he believes in a nonsense strawman. I've said that web3 and NFTs are absolutely chock full of nonsense and scams, but that it's worth exploring the little bit of it that is interesting at the core, and from which something interesting might be possible.
But this particular commenter is not at all interested in nuance or understanding and just wants to shit on me because he can't recognize that there might be a nuanced take. I mean, I've responded to him in the past, and it doesn't matter, because he keeps lying about my position. It's pathetic.
On the post: Confused Judge Grants Project Veritas' Prior Restraint Against The NY Times
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Other Side
This isn't about protective orders so your entire comment is nonsense.
On the post: Those Who Don't Understand Section 230 Are Doomed To Repeal It
Re: 'Oh no, not the bramble patch Mr Baker' said the Facebook
FWIW, when I presented that to Baker, he insisted it's not accurate, because Facebook wants "reform" not a repeal of 230, which is just a galaxy brain level take.
On the post: A Grope In Meta's Space
Re:
Hmm, who should I believe? Facebook and some fucking hack from the libertarian shill org that is the Cato Institute, or the harassment victim?
Hmm. Didn't read, did you? In the article, Will is citing the victim and highlighting what they said, noting that it contradicts FB (and the various reporters). So "believing" the victim means, believing Will.
Also, what's with the nonsense "shill" talk? Can you respond to the points? Clearly not since you didn't even read it and seem to think that Will is disagreeing with the victim.
On the post: Those Who Don't Understand Section 230 Are Doomed To Repeal It
Re:
We wrote about that!
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080328/134422686.shtml
Next >>