BMJ had a headline like that and they're surprised that people are/were flagging their article and lumping it in with the anti-vaxxers who were using it to show that they were 'right'? That's an own-goal if I ever saw one and they really should have just admitted they screwed up and moved on rather than throwing a fit and making themselves look even worse.
As for this demonstrating the dangers of forced moderation while it does certainly serve as an excellent example of why that's not nearly as easy as some people claim/think unfortunately a lot of those same people are likely to look at this and simple respond with 'nerd harder' since clearly if sites actually could be bothered their moderation would be perfect(read: exactly match what the person complaining believes should happen) and it's only laziness and greed that keeps them from that.
You mean the one of which even republican vote watchers couldn't see an issue? The one where, when called upon in court, every last one of your people had to confess they had nothing but their own words for it? The GOP did investigate the election and as you may recall the only voter fraud which was found was some of you guys trying to vote twice.
The evidence is in canada you see, it's super-duper totally real but you wouldn't know them.
Alternatively the evidence is magical and it's strength it inversely proportional to it's ability to be demonstrated, so the fact that it can't be demonstrated at all just serves to show how insanely good it is.
The problem with lying is that it's never a one and done event, it's something that's going to be hanging over your head for a while.
Even if you had the absolute best of intentions you've just made clear that you are willing to lie to someone to further your goals which makes it much harder to convince them that you're telling the truth after that and much easier for someone who might be trying to further their own goals to accuse you of lying.
For years now I've held to the idea that the only people who respect copyright law as it currently stands are those that either know little to nothing about it or those that have a financial stake it in being the way it is and I don't think I've seen a counter example yet.
Bathe in sewage and/or have a boss who does and you don't get to be surprised when people don't want to be around you. If they don't like the response they get for working under such a horrible agency then find another job or start working overtime to make clear that while their bosses may be scum they strive to do and be better.
Ah good old victim blaming, 'We had to try to ruin her life over a single CD, she made us do it!'
No, no she did not, and trying to shift the blame to your lawyers while at the same time you blame her for what her lawyer did... adding blatant hypocrisy into the mix is not helping you there Eric.
All the more so given the severity of the accusation as admitting to brutalizing your own kid would probably make it into a police report, making the absence of such an admission rather telling as to who's portrayal of events was more likely to be accurate.
Racists love to imply that MLK was against acknowledging racism by repeating that famous quote about judging people by their character. They use that conclusion to back up their idea that anyone who acknowledges racism—be it personal or systemic—is trying to “be divisive” or “keep racism alive”.
Yes, I'm sure the man famous for arguing against racism and for racial equality would be totally against admitting that racism exists...
Even taking that line entirely on it's own it would seem their argument shoots itself in the back as 'racist' is most certainly part of someone's character and judging them by it would be entire consistent, such that to even get close they'd have to warp the idea to 'judge someone by their character... unless that includes racism in which case ignore that when judging them' which for some strange reason I don't imagine he'd have said or meant.
If you want to talk about threats to science and progress I'm pretty sure Elbakyan nailed it by pointing out that those attempting to paywall and lock up research are vastly bigger problems than a platform designed to make sharing that research easier.
Those that work now build upon what came before them but if that knowledge is kept from them then everyone has to start from scratch and that's a massive impediment to progress, making the publishers trying to blame Sci-Hub very much a case of the pot calling the silverware black.
As glad as I am that the court got this right it is absolutely horrifying that a circuit court judge apparently sees nothing wrong in falsifying claims of child abuse because no-one felt it necessary to tell the guilty party that you're not supposed to do that.
'Framing someone for a crime they didn't commit' should be seen as so obviously wrong that there's no question that it's unacceptable in any situation, the fact that one judge got that wrong just shows that the social worker is not the only person grossly unfit for their job.
With 'law enforcement' like this who needs the mob?
Ah modern day law enforcement in america, a group who looked at the actions of organized crime and collectively responded with 'Amateurs, we'll show them how it's really done.'
Not going to happen as banks are more than willing and able to fight back, unlike most members of the public, not to mention it's not needed as they can just rob the bank's members rather than having to go after the bank directly.
That's where evidence laundering comes into play, get the evidence from an illegal source and then claim that you got it from a legal one and since judges are very hesitant to call out police for corruption or abusing the court system like that and are willing to take police at their word odds are very good that such a trick will work.
When 'Doing Something' means trampling the first amendment...
230 may not have been written with the intent to out a bunch of first amendment-hating politicians and people but it sure does the job incredibly well. So very many politicians eager to look like they're Doing Something and play to the gullible that they're willing to make clear just how much they'd love to see the first amendment thrown under the bus as soon as it benefits them.
Can't imagine why the judge wasn't impressed with 'we have a first amendment right to try to overthrow an election', you mean to tell me that's not in there somewhere?
On the post: A Fight Between Facebook And The British Medical Journal Highlights The Difficulty Of Moderating 'Medical Misinformation'
BMJ had a headline like that and they're surprised that people are/were flagging their article and lumping it in with the anti-vaxxers who were using it to show that they were 'right'? That's an own-goal if I ever saw one and they really should have just admitted they screwed up and moved on rather than throwing a fit and making themselves look even worse.
As for this demonstrating the dangers of forced moderation while it does certainly serve as an excellent example of why that's not nearly as easy as some people claim/think unfortunately a lot of those same people are likely to look at this and simple respond with 'nerd harder' since clearly if sites actually could be bothered their moderation would be perfect(read: exactly match what the person complaining believes should happen) and it's only laziness and greed that keeps them from that.
On the post: Federal Court Tells Proud Boys Defendants That Raiding The Capitol Building Isn't Covered By The First Amendment
Re: Re: Say What?
You mean the one of which even republican vote watchers couldn't see an issue? The one where, when called upon in court, every last one of your people had to confess they had nothing but their own words for it?
The GOP did investigate the election and as you may recall the only voter fraud which was found was some of you guys trying to vote twice.
The evidence is in canada you see, it's super-duper totally real but you wouldn't know them.
Alternatively the evidence is magical and it's strength it inversely proportional to it's ability to be demonstrated, so the fact that it can't be demonstrated at all just serves to show how insanely good it is.
On the post: NY Senator Proposes Ridiculously Unconstitutional Social Media Law That Is The Mirror Opposite Of Equally Unconstitutional Laws In Florida & Texas
Re: Re: Re:
The problem with lying is that it's never a one and done event, it's something that's going to be hanging over your head for a while.
Even if you had the absolute best of intentions you've just made clear that you are willing to lie to someone to further your goals which makes it much harder to convince them that you're telling the truth after that and much easier for someone who might be trying to further their own goals to accuse you of lying.
On the post: Eric Clapton Pretends To Regret The Decision To Sue Random German Woman Who Listed A Bootleg Of One Of His CDs On Ebay
Re:
For years now I've held to the idea that the only people who respect copyright law as it currently stands are those that either know little to nothing about it or those that have a financial stake it in being the way it is and I don't think I've seen a counter example yet.
On the post: ICE Is So Toxic That The DHS's Investigative Wing Is Asking To Be Completely Separated From It
Re: Re:
When one of the options for a political office is Trump it's near impossible not to offer a better choice.
On the post: Eric Clapton Pretends To Regret The Decision To Sue Random German Woman Who Listed A Bootleg Of One Of His CDs On Ebay
Re: Re: Re:
Ah, the dreaded two-for-one of 'personal responsibility' and 'consequences for your actions', figures the plague rats would have a bloody term for it.
On the post: Google Blocked An Article About Police From The Intercept... Because The Title Included A Phrase That Was Also A Movie Title
'It would cost US to be wrong? Let's check those claims again..'
Ah the problems that would be avoided if the law was even remotely balanced and had a penalty for issuing bogus claims...
On the post: ICE Is So Toxic That The DHS's Investigative Wing Is Asking To Be Completely Separated From It
Bathe in sewage and/or have a boss who does and you don't get to be surprised when people don't want to be around you. If they don't like the response they get for working under such a horrible agency then find another job or start working overtime to make clear that while their bosses may be scum they strive to do and be better.
On the post: ICE Is So Toxic That The DHS's Investigative Wing Is Asking To Be Completely Separated From It
Re:
'Oh the agents have it bad? How terrible. Now how's life for those that have to deal with them?'
On the post: Eric Clapton Pretends To Regret The Decision To Sue Random German Woman Who Listed A Bootleg Of One Of His CDs On Ebay
'Why do you make me hit you like this?'
Ah good old victim blaming, 'We had to try to ruin her life over a single CD, she made us do it!'
No, no she did not, and trying to shift the blame to your lawyers while at the same time you blame her for what her lawyer did... adding blatant hypocrisy into the mix is not helping you there Eric.
On the post: Tenth Circuit Denies Qualified Immunity To Social Worker Who Fabricated A Mother's Confession Of Child Abuse
Re: Re:
All the more so given the severity of the accusation as admitting to brutalizing your own kid would probably make it into a police report, making the absence of such an admission rather telling as to who's portrayal of events was more likely to be accurate.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of 2021 At Techdirt
Re:
Racists love to imply that MLK was against acknowledging racism by repeating that famous quote about judging people by their character. They use that conclusion to back up their idea that anyone who acknowledges racism—be it personal or systemic—is trying to “be divisive” or “keep racism alive”.
Yes, I'm sure the man famous for arguing against racism and for racial equality would be totally against admitting that racism exists...
Even taking that line entirely on it's own it would seem their argument shoots itself in the back as 'racist' is most certainly part of someone's character and judging them by it would be entire consistent, such that to even get close they'd have to warp the idea to 'judge someone by their character... unless that includes racism in which case ignore that when judging them' which for some strange reason I don't imagine he'd have said or meant.
Like I said above, both pathetic and hilarious.
On the post: Sci-Hub's Creator Thinks Academic Publishers, Not Her Site, Are The Real Threat To Science, And Says: 'Any Law Against Knowledge Is Fundamentally Unjust'
If you want to talk about threats to science and progress I'm pretty sure Elbakyan nailed it by pointing out that those attempting to paywall and lock up research are vastly bigger problems than a platform designed to make sharing that research easier.
Those that work now build upon what came before them but if that knowledge is kept from them then everyone has to start from scratch and that's a massive impediment to progress, making the publishers trying to blame Sci-Hub very much a case of the pot calling the silverware black.
On the post: Tenth Circuit Denies Qualified Immunity To Social Worker Who Fabricated A Mother's Confession Of Child Abuse
As glad as I am that the court got this right it is absolutely horrifying that a circuit court judge apparently sees nothing wrong in falsifying claims of child abuse because no-one felt it necessary to tell the guilty party that you're not supposed to do that.
'Framing someone for a crime they didn't commit' should be seen as so obviously wrong that there's no question that it's unacceptable in any situation, the fact that one judge got that wrong just shows that the social worker is not the only person grossly unfit for their job.
On the post: Boston Police Department Used Forfeiture Funds To Hide Purchase Of Surveillance Tech From City Reps
With 'law enforcement' like this who needs the mob?
Ah modern day law enforcement in america, a group who looked at the actions of organized crime and collectively responded with 'Amateurs, we'll show them how it's really done.'
On the post: Boston Police Department Used Forfeiture Funds To Hide Purchase Of Surveillance Tech From City Reps
Re: Brinks - Watch out
Not going to happen as banks are more than willing and able to fight back, unlike most members of the public, not to mention it's not needed as they can just rob the bank's members rather than having to go after the bank directly.
On the post: Boston Police Department Used Forfeiture Funds To Hide Purchase Of Surveillance Tech From City Reps
Re:
That's where evidence laundering comes into play, get the evidence from an illegal source and then claim that you got it from a legal one and since judges are very hesitant to call out police for corruption or abusing the court system like that and are willing to take police at their word odds are very good that such a trick will work.
On the post: NY Senator Proposes Ridiculously Unconstitutional Social Media Law That Is The Mirror Opposite Of Equally Unconstitutional Laws In Florida & Texas
When 'Doing Something' means trampling the first amendment...
230 may not have been written with the intent to out a bunch of first amendment-hating politicians and people but it sure does the job incredibly well. So very many politicians eager to look like they're Doing Something and play to the gullible that they're willing to make clear just how much they'd love to see the first amendment thrown under the bus as soon as it benefits them.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of 2021 At Techdirt
Re: Re:
... the hell? Racists think that someone who's most well known for his anti-racist actions and words would agree with their position?
That is both pathetic and hilarious.
On the post: Federal Court Tells Proud Boys Defendants That Raiding The Capitol Building Isn't Covered By The First Amendment
When you have no good argument, flail like mad
Can't imagine why the judge wasn't impressed with 'we have a first amendment right to try to overthrow an election', you mean to tell me that's not in there somewhere?
Next >>