You sound like my Grandpa did back in the early 70's:
"All these dope smoking hippies have no morals or scruples with all their loud rock n roll and free love crap. The world is going go to hell in a hand basket, just you wait and see."
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it"
-George Santayana
Although, I do agree with the rest of your comment about not making a big deal about a small gathering of dickheads and turning it into the media circus they want.
I have no idea how accurate these numbers may be, but it certainly will give you a rough idea of Techdirt's popularity and amount of traffic coming from Google.
You offer no explanation for the inexplicable (Techdirt's high ranking on Google), why is that? You don't have any idea how it happens? Neither do we. Doesn't seem at all plausible. It's a big mystery. And you want me to stop asking questions about it, right? Don't ask about the big mystery of why the Techdirt Pirate message is so widely spread by Google.
It's not inexplicable at all.
First off, Techdirt was here before Google even existed.
Second, Techdirt doesn't "disappear" old articles, so everyday new content is added to their huge repository, which in and of itself, will increase the odds of being relevant to what people are searching for.
Third, (and I am guessing here), is that a lot of people click through to Techdirt because it actually discusses the issues they happen to be searching for. Being relevant to what is being searched goes a long way to increasing rankings, I'm sure.
There are probably many more perfectly reasonable reasons for Techdirt's rankings too. You do realize that Techdirt is pretty popular don't you? They get somewhere between 1.5 million to 2 million page hits a month and somewhere around 15% of those are from Google searches.
No I do not have a history of doing the exact same things Gwiz. In 2015 I responded to the ridicule and outright abuse meted out by Techdirt, Guadamuz and others and then I walked away.
Do you want to know a fun fact? Your reputation isn't based on how you perceive things, it's based on how everyone else perceives you.
The way I perceive it is that Techdirt's original article and Guadamuz's piece did not ridicule or abuse you at all. They simple stated their opinion that you suing a third party for the actions of someone else is bad legal precedence. Your responses to these, on the other hand, were filled with all sorts of threats, ridicule and defamation.
I was merely pointing out that you have a pretty long history of doing the exact same things you accuse everyone else of doing. You know, glass houses....
You seem to believe that free speech is only for speech you agree with and I find that to be reprehensible. It's the indefensible position of a weak minded person. Just my 2 cents.
Let's nail down that Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA), the organization that runs the Metro IS a corporation, not part of government.
Your "hammer" missed it's mark Blue. You didn't "nail down" anything at all:
The Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, commonly referred to as Metro, is a tri-jurisdictional government agency that operates transit service in the Washington metropolitan area. Source
This is a Storify of Duffy defaming a writer who had the audacity to analyze and write about the Australian Google decision. (bonus - there are some tweets from Mike, Popehat and a couple of other people you know in there)
Janice Duffy seems have a very efficient paradox-absorbing crumple zones, if you ask my opinion.
She constantly whines when anyone uses speech to counter her rhetoric, but seems to feel she has the right say whatever she wants. On her blog are many examples of her using somewhat derogatory terms like "goons" &"cronies" to describe commenters here on Techdirt. She has repeatedly made unfounded statements accusing Mike & Techdirt of conspiring with Ripoffreports, Google & Youtube. She has also made many unfounded statements stating that Mike is/was somehow secretly directing his readers/commenters to attack her personally.
Very hypocritical in my eyes. The phrase "Can dish it out, but can't take it" comes to mind.
On an aside, one of the comments she feels is "abusive" is from me, where all I was doing was speculating how well it would be received in Australia if Google pulled it's services due to increased liability as a result of her court case:
Re: No, it's administrator action: "It even exists here at TD where the community itself likes to flag comments that it "disapproves" of."
Besides, as practical fact Techdirt is a PUBLIC SITE, SEE? Here I am using the public comment box it offers, of its own will. That's a FORMS CONTRACT, which along with other points (that Techdirt implies but won't state), makes this a PUBLIC SITE.
Blue also thinks his unique definition of "PUBLIC SITE" applies at Walmart too. I think this might be a video of him:
How can removing exceptions for "teh internets" and restoring to as decades prior be "counterproductive to the stated goal of stopping human trafficking"?
Since you love to bring up common law whenever you possibly can Blue, let me ask you a question:
When have we ever held the blacksmith responsible when somebody else used a sword he created to commit murder?
Who uses WhatsApp because it is end-to-end encrypted, rather than because it is an incredibly user-friendly and cheap way of staying in touch with friends and family?
This isn't an either/or situation. Real people want security AND ease of use.
No one has claimed that the players of these games are somehow exempt from existing property laws, local laws and/or city ordinances, only that that this particular ordinance is most likely unconstitutional and unenforceable.
The actual persons trespassing on private property or littering are responsible for their own actions and that has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with whatever app they happen to be using at the time.
NOT difficult at all: a shop printing text on paper has some duty to be sure it's not infringed.
Umm...no. I work at a sign shop and absolutely zero resources are spent on verifying copyright on anything. We would most certainly be out of business by now, if we had to waste valuable manhours doing that.
It's assumed, by default, that the customer has permission for any images/artwork they give us.
Re: Huge numbers of illegal immigrants harm the economy
Their presence in the country absolutely affects the economy.
Yep. But not how you think it does. Overall, higher rates of foreign-born population historically have corresponded to lower unemployment rates.
A U.S. Department of Labor study prepared by the Bush Administration noted that the perception that immigrants take jobs away from American workers is "the most persistent fallacy about immigration in popular thought" because it is based on the mistaken assumption that there is only a fixed number of jobs in the economy. Source
Re: Re: What is illegal speech? [was Re: Re: Re: ]
The result is someone who uses the internet for criminal acts is not protected speech. Thus 512 i and the 1st amendment get along nicely.
17 U.S. Code § 512 (i) "provides for the termination [...] of subscribers and account holders [...] who are repeat infringers". It says nothing about anyone who has been repeatedly accused of infringement via DMCA notices.
DMCA notices are not, in and of themselves, any sort of indication of guilt, they are simply accusations by the rights holders and may not even be sustainable claims.
Until a court has determined that a copyright infringement has occurred, the speech is protected by the First Amendment.
So if an ISP doesn't want to run afoul of the First Amendment, they should only terminate the accounts of those who have been found guilty of infringement, at least twice, in a court of law.
1) Just because you're on or near my property and have a camera doesn't mean you've a right to image anything and everything I own. -- If so, industrial secrets are included, right?
Perhaps not on your property, but from a public space, YES, absolutely YES, I have the right to photograph anything and everything I can see, at least in the United States. The eyes cannot trespass. This has been established by our courts many times over and is based on English common law. Same goes for your "industrial secrets", if you don't want it photographed, put a building around it.
The comments on the video, as few as they are, are an astonishing morass.
I saw that too. Janice Duffy, Patrick Zarrelli & Richard Bennet all crawled out of the woodwork to comment there.
I found the Ray Gordon guy to be the funniest though:
"Section 230 of course chills speech because once someone is defamed, everyone else can pile on with immunity."
"Section 230 destroys lives by immunizing instigators and third-party defamers."
I wonder where Mr. Gordon would post all those comments if Section 230 didn't exist?
The best Gordon line is this one though:
"A simple motion to dismiss would defeat a frivolous lawsuit."
He makes it sound like fighting a $15 million lawsuit is as easy as walking into Micky D's and ordering a burger. Not to mention that Techdirt is currently waiting on the court's decision concerning the motions to dismiss that have already been filed and argued.
On the post: The MPAA Narrative About Piracy Flips To Danger From Pirate Sites Now That It Has Lost The Moral Argument
Re: "Lost the moral battle", eh?
"All these dope smoking hippies have no morals or scruples with all their loud rock n roll and free love crap. The world is going go to hell in a hand basket, just you wait and see."
I'm still waiting.
On the post: Impostor Sending Out DMCA Notices In Chaturbate's Name Now Targeting Techdirt URLs
Re: dang...
I agree. It was like Chatubate was using the DMCA to screw themselves and there was pure comedy gold in that.
On the post: Defending Hateful Speech Is Unpleasant But Essential, Even When Violence Is The End Result
Re:
Ummm, me.
Although, I do agree with the rest of your comment about not making a big deal about a small gathering of dickheads and turning it into the media circus they want.
On the post: Danish University And Industry Work Together On Open Science Platform Whose Results Will All Be Patent-Free
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The 15% of traffic originating from Google comes from here:
http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/techdirt.com
And the total traffic numbers are from here:
https://www.similarweb.com/website/techdirt.com
I have no idea how accurate these numbers may be, but it certainly will give you a rough idea of Techdirt's popularity and amount of traffic coming from Google.
On the post: Danish University And Industry Work Together On Open Science Platform Whose Results Will All Be Patent-Free
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's not inexplicable at all.
First off, Techdirt was here before Google even existed.
Second, Techdirt doesn't "disappear" old articles, so everyday new content is added to their huge repository, which in and of itself, will increase the odds of being relevant to what people are searching for.
Third, (and I am guessing here), is that a lot of people click through to Techdirt because it actually discusses the issues they happen to be searching for. Being relevant to what is being searched goes a long way to increasing rankings, I'm sure.
There are probably many more perfectly reasonable reasons for Techdirt's rankings too. You do realize that Techdirt is pretty popular don't you? They get somewhere between 1.5 million to 2 million page hits a month and somewhere around 15% of those are from Google searches.
This is not the conspiracy you are looking for.
On the post: Techdirt: Now With More Free Speech Reporting
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: disingenuous prick
Do you want to know a fun fact? Your reputation isn't based on how you perceive things, it's based on how everyone else perceives you.
The way I perceive it is that Techdirt's original article and Guadamuz's piece did not ridicule or abuse you at all. They simple stated their opinion that you suing a third party for the actions of someone else is bad legal precedence. Your responses to these, on the other hand, were filled with all sorts of threats, ridicule and defamation.
Do you not see the hypocrisy in that?
On the post: Techdirt: Now With More Free Speech Reporting
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: disingenuous prick
I was merely pointing out that you have a pretty long history of doing the exact same things you accuse everyone else of doing. You know, glass houses....
You seem to believe that free speech is only for speech you agree with and I find that to be reprehensible. It's the indefensible position of a weak minded person. Just my 2 cents.
On the post: ACLU Sues DC Metro For Banning 'First Amendment' (Literally) And Other Controversial Content
Re:
Your "hammer" missed it's mark Blue. You didn't "nail down" anything at all:
On the post: Techdirt: Now With More Free Speech Reporting
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: disingenuous prick
Also, for your reading pleasure:
This is a Storify of Duffy defaming a writer who had the audacity to analyze and write about the Australian Google decision. (bonus - there are some tweets from Mike, Popehat and a couple of other people you know in there)
https://storify.com/AndresGuadamuz/yet-another-dr-duffy-storify
(This is part 4 of 4 - be sure to read through the first three parts)
On the post: Techdirt: Now With More Free Speech Reporting
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: disingenuous prick
Janice Duffy seems have a very efficient paradox-absorbing crumple zones, if you ask my opinion.
She constantly whines when anyone uses speech to counter her rhetoric, but seems to feel she has the right say whatever she wants. On her blog are many examples of her using somewhat derogatory terms like "goons" &"cronies" to describe commenters here on Techdirt. She has repeatedly made unfounded statements accusing Mike & Techdirt of conspiring with Ripoffreports, Google & Youtube. She has also made many unfounded statements stating that Mike is/was somehow secretly directing his readers/commenters to attack her personally.
Very hypocritical in my eyes. The phrase "Can dish it out, but can't take it" comes to mind.
On an aside, one of the comments she feels is "abusive" is from me, where all I was doing was speculating how well it would be received in Australia if Google pulled it's services due to increased liability as a result of her court case:
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20151028/09424232657/right-to-be-forgotten-now-lives-austral ia-court-says-google-is-publisher-material-it-links-to.shtml#c363
On the post: Techdirt: Now With More Free Speech Reporting
Re: No, it's administrator action: "It even exists here at TD where the community itself likes to flag comments that it "disapproves" of."
Blue also thinks his unique definition of "PUBLIC SITE" applies at Walmart too. I think this might be a video of him:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6USNGO4wwoc
On the post: How Congress' Attempt To Break CDA230 Could Kill Airbnb
Re:
Since you love to bring up common law whenever you possibly can Blue, let me ask you a question:
When have we ever held the blacksmith responsible when somebody else used a sword he created to commit murder?
On the post: UK Home Secretary Doesn't Want Backdoors; She Just Wants Companies To Stop Offering Encryption Because No One Wants It
This isn't an either/or situation. Real people want security AND ease of use.
On the post: Court Blocks Wisconsin Augmented Reality Permit Law From Being Enforced
Re: OK
Yeah, that's a really silly bunch of words there.
No one has claimed that the players of these games are somehow exempt from existing property laws, local laws and/or city ordinances, only that that this particular ordinance is most likely unconstitutional and unenforceable.
The actual persons trespassing on private property or littering are responsible for their own actions and that has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with whatever app they happen to be using at the time.
On the post: Court Says DMCA Safe Harbors Disappear Once Infringing Images Are Printed On Physical Items
Re:
Umm...no. I work at a sign shop and absolutely zero resources are spent on verifying copyright on anything. We would most certainly be out of business by now, if we had to waste valuable manhours doing that.
It's assumed, by default, that the customer has permission for any images/artwork they give us.
On the post: ICE Says The Hell With The President, DHS; Orders Officers To Remove ALL Undocumented Immigrants
Re: Huge numbers of illegal immigrants harm the economy
Yep. But not how you think it does. Overall, higher rates of foreign-born population historically have corresponded to lower unemployment rates.
On the post: As Predicted, Cox's Latest Appeal Points To SCOTUS' Refusal To Disconnect Sex Offenders From Social Media
Re:
Speaking of crazy conspiracy theories.... I heard that Techdirt is sheltering Bigfoot and Elvis in a Buddha statue near their office.
On the post: How The Supreme Court's Recent Free Speech Ruling May Destroy Hollywood's Plans To Kick People Off The Internet
Re: Re: What is illegal speech? [was Re: Re: Re: ]
17 U.S. Code § 512 (i) "provides for the termination [...] of subscribers and account holders [...] who are repeat infringers". It says nothing about anyone who has been repeatedly accused of infringement via DMCA notices.
DMCA notices are not, in and of themselves, any sort of indication of guilt, they are simply accusations by the rights holders and may not even be sustainable claims.
Until a court has determined that a copyright infringement has occurred, the speech is protected by the First Amendment.
So if an ISP doesn't want to run afoul of the First Amendment, they should only terminate the accounts of those who have been found guilty of infringement, at least twice, in a court of law.
On the post: Multiple German Courts Rule Photos Of Public Domain Works Are Not In The Public Domain
Re:
Perhaps not on your property, but from a public space, YES, absolutely YES, I have the right to photograph anything and everything I can see, at least in the United States. The eyes cannot trespass. This has been established by our courts many times over and is based on English common law. Same goes for your "industrial secrets", if you don't want it photographed, put a building around it.
On the post: The Chilling Effects Of A SLAPP Suit: My Story
Re:
I saw that too. Janice Duffy, Patrick Zarrelli & Richard Bennet all crawled out of the woodwork to comment there.
I found the Ray Gordon guy to be the funniest though:
I wonder where Mr. Gordon would post all those comments if Section 230 didn't exist?
The best Gordon line is this one though:
He makes it sound like fighting a $15 million lawsuit is as easy as walking into Micky D's and ordering a burger. Not to mention that Techdirt is currently waiting on the court's decision concerning the motions to dismiss that have already been filed and argued.
Next >>