I replied to someone who attacked me in the same tone and manner they did. I didn't start it, but clearly I ended it. After that, you can see someone trying to troll some more and failing.
Perhaps you might consider that what you are doing right now is trolling as well, and certainly and totally 100% off topic?
I disagree with people. I tell them what I think. I don't taunt or mock people randomly for fun. Mostly I point out that certain people (like PaulT) are a bit daft.
Go look at my post history - and look at why I posted. You might see what taunting and mockery looks like (and good job yourself on that!)
Congrats to the whole Techdirt team for dodging a bullet, and a reasonably well aimed one at that. You should count yourselves very lucky that you ended up in front of a judge who was willing to review the claims and decide before sending you to trial. it's not unusual for this sort of case to go that way.
That said, perhaps some lessons could be learned from all of this. The most important one is that mockery and taunting is not the best way to get things done. You can take the time to figure out the billable hours on one of these things, and consider it carefully before you go down the same road again. Even if you keep winning, it can get very expensive to get there.
As for the mythical question for anti-SLAPP, I wish you luck. The power of anti-SLAPP is perhaps a little too strong at times, and I would not be shocked to see it challenged as a legal concept at some point in the future. You may think of it as a free speech utopia, but it may not work out quite that way.
So keep up the good work, cut out the pointless nastiness, and FFS fix the flagging system, it sucks!
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The costs to actually police and maintain a comment section at that level is immense.
I love people like you. Poor readers, and even poorer at snark. You make Leigh look like a pro!
In each of your examples, I used the term "could". I could do X, I could do Y. I choose not to do so personally (but others clearly do use proxies to multi-vote). I could do so, but it's a gesture that would be lost, especially on people like you.
I have no agenda. I learned a long time ago that hanging around with a bunch of people who always agree with you teaches you nothing except how to get your ass kissed. Standing with people you disagree with teaches you way more.
Re: Re: Re: The costs to actually police and maintain a comment section at that level is immense.
Womp womp womp sad trombone, you fail.
Comments are an optional (and not required) part of delivering the news. It's an added featuring in the same manner as the free breakfast at the hotel you stayed at last night. It's not a requirement, it's an extra feature, and if it's too expensive to provide, they won't do it.
Sites that benefit from and profit from copyright infringement have a huge financial benefit from turning a blind eye.
if there was as much money to be made with comments as there was with piracy, news sites would line up to do it. Hey, even Techdirt might be profitable at that point.
A request for public opinion isn't a poll, and one cannot deduce of infer the opinion of the entire population based on it. The people who comment choose to do so because the topic interests them, and nothing else. So those who choose to comment are more involved in the topic at hand.
It's not a question of numbers (majority). It's a question of cross section and representation of the entire population. This self selecting poll / public opinion request doesn't come close to hitting the mark, because the people answering are likely to be from a smaller demographic group. It doesn't match the greater population in makeup or distribution, which means you cannot make "general population" conclusions based on it.
The cost and size of the effort is overwhelming. Al Jezeera publishes hundreds of stories each day, which in turn generate hundreds if not thousands of comments each. The costs to actually police and maintain a comment section at that level is immense. In an industry that has razor thin margins (if they are positive at all) it's almost impossible to justify the type of manpower required to do it.
The benefits (small) versus costs (large) make this sort of a no brainer. Getting into social media instead (say on Facebook) is a way more interesting place to be.
"Looked at from the benefit and harm perspective, this move is all harm."
Not really. Faced with hundreds (of thousands) of abusive comments, insults, racist attitudes, and the like, it's normal for people to be less interested in the comment sections. If the participation rate is low and the "hatred" rate is high, then removing the comments is perhaps a better thing. Moving those discussions to a level playing field (say like Facebook or using Facebook login for comments on the site) would be preferable to what most news sites turn into.
The ability to comment is not removed. You can still head to facebook, twitter, or what have you and express your opinion. You are not silenced.
Self selecting surveys of any sort, no matter the outcome, are always suspect.
Opinion polls run on CNN, Fox, and perhaps Alex Jones site would likely give you three completely different results, and those results would be skewed by who actually visits their sites. Are any of them right? Probably not.
"It's not a lie in the slightest to point out that of the people who submitted comments almost all of them were in favor of the current rules, with almost none against them."
No, but it's a lie to try to make it sound like all consumers feel the same way. 98.5% of the population did not comment, so it's more reasonable to draw the conclusion of apathy, and nothing else.
See, the issue is one typical of Techdirt: Take the truth (98.5% of all comment writers support NN), modify it very slightly so that it's "truthy" (98.5% of consumers writing comments support NN), and then evolve it a bit further to make it "proof" of your point (98.5% of consumers support NN). There is a shades of grey process here where it's hard to point at the moment when it became dishonest, especially if you have to track back through multiple self-referencing stories.
Basically, Karl left the idea dangling, and in the future, this story is likely to be referenced to show that clearly consumers (98.5% of them!) approve NN. I am just trying to point out that the data does not support it. IN fact, one of the surveys is done by Mozilla... using online participants. Hmmm!
So yeah, I am often critical of surveys were the sample group isn't representative of the population as a whole, especially when it's filled with people who are mostly active and engaged on the topic.
You don't have to look far to see the benefits to readers. Few people (except maybe Techdirt readers) wants to come to a page full of name calling, swearing, complaining, and racists attacks. The comment sections of many sites degrade in this fashion, even after the obvious spam is filtered out.
Some resolve the issue by requiring that you are logged in via Facebook to comment. That seems to resolve part of the issue, as people are perhaps less likely to be obnoxious when their real name, profile, and list of friends isn't far away. Even then I can tell you that Facebook ain't paradise at times.
Removing comments or moving comments to third party systems (like using twitter or Facebook pages to "host" discussions is another option that some take. Mostly, it's to get the junk off the main pages and out of site of the public.
For the vast majority of people who do not comment on stories, there is no real loss. For them it's a benefit.
So I don't think the sites are being dishonest in saying they are doing this to benefit their readers. They cannot (or cannot afford to) properly moderate the comments on the thousands of stories they publish each week. If they cannot do it right,doing it at all may not be in the best interest of their readers.
Now, I accept and understand that it's not the way you see journalism in the digital age. That they don't agree with you doesn't make them wrong or worthy of mocking. Perhaps in some ways your own views need a reality check. It seems they have valid reasons to do what they do, and they explain it correctly.
You can keep throwing that 98.% figure out there, but remember: The total number of comment writers is less than 1 % of the US population. 98.5% of Americans apparently don't give a crap.
Repeating your lie over and over again will not make it the truth. The truth is not at all what you want it to be.
Not the conclusion I am trying to draw. I am only drawing the conclusion that while 98.5% of the comments are for Net Neutrality, it's no indication of how the public as a whole feels. A is not equal to B.
People don't care to be informed because it's not relevant to them.
If you explain it to them in pro-net neutrality terms, they will probably agree with. Then again, on anti-net neutrality terms, they could also agree if that is the only side of the story they hear.
My point is only that if most of the population is apathetic about net neutrality or have the opinion of "meh", they won't bother to fill out comments either way. So saying "98.5% are against" is meaningless because it's 98.5% of people who are versed enough on the subject, and they are generally all for net neutrality if they are interested in the topic.
When you consider that the total comments reaches a level of about 1% of the population, that sort of explains it all.
You nailed it (better than I could explain, and thanks).
The question is the sample group. NN commenters are "self selecting" rather than being actively searched out. It's not like 1000 people were randomly called and asked their opinion. Instead, people who felt strongly about NN posted comments.
People who are for the currently (not totally implemented) net neutrality rules feel strongly about it, and thus are writing comments.
People who don't feel strongly about net neutrality pretty much say "meh" and not much else, and cannot be bothered to make a comment to explain why it's not important to them.
People here try to frame it as "for" or "against". The reality is that it is "for" and "don't care". Don't care types don't write comments. They don't care.
Giving keys away for free or selling them for pennies on the dollar is it's own form of piracy. The software maker does not get financial recompense for this "sale".
So the response is directly to a form of piracy, as the story says.
I know it's hard for you to grasp. Try. Just once.
Why the comments are going one way and one way only is pretty simple: The other side doesn't really stand for anything in particular.
It's on the level of asking people a room full of people with peanut allergies if they want nuts on the McSundae ice cream. Those who are there are there for a reason, and they will have a strong opinion. So in this case, 98.5% of people with a strong opinion about something very nebulous have the same opinion.
In other news, the sky appears blue to the human eye.
I don't think of it as a "nimble response to piracy", I think it's more a case of choosing the lesser of two evils. It's suffer the piracy or death by snu snu. Either day, you are f--ked.
The volume of comments on this blog doesn't merit banning anyone, except the obvious "I have a great site for you to see" spammers.
Being a bastion of free speech and opinion exchange, Techdirt shouldn't get into editing, moderating, or holding comments at any time. I do think, however, that the flag button should only flag a post for moderators to consider, and not automatically remove posts. It creates a form of vigilante justice that is just not in keeping with the ideas of free speech and open comments.
The money laundering charge is in many ways the one that is the hardest to get away from.
The issue at hand is that sites like Backpage (and Craigslist) give away free ads, but generally only charge for "adult" ads. Much of the adult material is related to escorts and body rubs, both of which are illegal to varying degrees in almost all parts of the US. A US Senate committee that found the site knowingly aided users in posting ads for prostitution and child sex trafficking.
Playing tricky games using outside shell companies to process the transactions creates the process by which funds are laundered. Backpage gets to charge for their ads for what is obviously an illegal service, but by doing it through a third party that is selling "credits" instead of ads directly, they create a method by which the funds are kept clean, away from the dirty ads.
Money laundering really only requires that the prosecutor shows that illegal acts are happening (duh, prostitution is everywhere), and that Backpage knew that many of the ads were for illegal services. The act of moving the processing out of the company creates the laundering effect (dirty money / clean money exchange). Backpage provides the dirty service, while the bp coins site selling credits and nothing else, sending nice clean money back to the site owners.
I don't think this is a good case for section 230. If anything, it's the perfect ammo for those who look to weaken the law. Backpage seems to be intent on pushing this until it breaks.
On the post: Case Dismissed: Judge Throws Out Shiva Ayyadurai's Defamation Lawsuit Against Techdirt
Re: Re: Re: Re: Congrats Etc
Perhaps you might consider that what you are doing right now is trolling as well, and certainly and totally 100% off topic?
On the post: Case Dismissed: Judge Throws Out Shiva Ayyadurai's Defamation Lawsuit Against Techdirt
Re: Re: Congrats Etc
Go look at my post history - and look at why I posted. You might see what taunting and mockery looks like (and good job yourself on that!)
On the post: Case Dismissed: Judge Throws Out Shiva Ayyadurai's Defamation Lawsuit Against Techdirt
Congrats Etc
That said, perhaps some lessons could be learned from all of this. The most important one is that mockery and taunting is not the best way to get things done. You can take the time to figure out the billable hours on one of these things, and consider it carefully before you go down the same road again. Even if you keep winning, it can get very expensive to get there.
As for the mythical question for anti-SLAPP, I wish you luck. The power of anti-SLAPP is perhaps a little too strong at times, and I would not be shocked to see it challenged as a legal concept at some point in the future. You may think of it as a free speech utopia, but it may not work out quite that way.
So keep up the good work, cut out the pointless nastiness, and FFS fix the flagging system, it sucks!
On the post: Al Jazeera Gives A 'Voice To The Voiceless' By Killing News Comments
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The costs to actually police and maintain a comment section at that level is immense.
In each of your examples, I used the term "could". I could do X, I could do Y. I choose not to do so personally (but others clearly do use proxies to multi-vote). I could do so, but it's a gesture that would be lost, especially on people like you.
I have no agenda. I learned a long time ago that hanging around with a bunch of people who always agree with you teaches you nothing except how to get your ass kissed. Standing with people you disagree with teaches you way more.
You should try it some times.
On the post: Al Jazeera Gives A 'Voice To The Voiceless' By Killing News Comments
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The costs to actually police and maintain a comment section at that level is immense.
Techdirt, your flagging system sucks, without a doubt.
On the post: Al Jazeera Gives A 'Voice To The Voiceless' By Killing News Comments
Re: Re: Re: The costs to actually police and maintain a comment section at that level is immense.
Comments are an optional (and not required) part of delivering the news. It's an added featuring in the same manner as the free breakfast at the hotel you stayed at last night. It's not a requirement, it's an extra feature, and if it's too expensive to provide, they won't do it.
Sites that benefit from and profit from copyright infringement have a huge financial benefit from turning a blind eye.
if there was as much money to be made with comments as there was with piracy, news sites would line up to do it. Hey, even Techdirt might be profitable at that point.
On the post: AT&T Blatantly Lies, Claims Most Consumers Want Net Neutrality Killed
Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's not a question of numbers (majority). It's a question of cross section and representation of the entire population. This self selecting poll / public opinion request doesn't come close to hitting the mark, because the people answering are likely to be from a smaller demographic group. It doesn't match the greater population in makeup or distribution, which means you cannot make "general population" conclusions based on it.
Majority isn't the issue.
On the post: Al Jazeera Gives A 'Voice To The Voiceless' By Killing News Comments
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The benefits (small) versus costs (large) make this sort of a no brainer. Getting into social media instead (say on Facebook) is a way more interesting place to be.
On the post: Al Jazeera Gives A 'Voice To The Voiceless' By Killing News Comments
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Not really. Faced with hundreds (of thousands) of abusive comments, insults, racist attitudes, and the like, it's normal for people to be less interested in the comment sections. If the participation rate is low and the "hatred" rate is high, then removing the comments is perhaps a better thing. Moving those discussions to a level playing field (say like Facebook or using Facebook login for comments on the site) would be preferable to what most news sites turn into.
The ability to comment is not removed. You can still head to facebook, twitter, or what have you and express your opinion. You are not silenced.
On the post: AT&T Blatantly Lies, Claims Most Consumers Want Net Neutrality Killed
Re: Re:
Opinion polls run on CNN, Fox, and perhaps Alex Jones site would likely give you three completely different results, and those results would be skewed by who actually visits their sites. Are any of them right? Probably not.
"It's not a lie in the slightest to point out that of the people who submitted comments almost all of them were in favor of the current rules, with almost none against them."
No, but it's a lie to try to make it sound like all consumers feel the same way. 98.5% of the population did not comment, so it's more reasonable to draw the conclusion of apathy, and nothing else.
See, the issue is one typical of Techdirt: Take the truth (98.5% of all comment writers support NN), modify it very slightly so that it's "truthy" (98.5% of consumers writing comments support NN), and then evolve it a bit further to make it "proof" of your point (98.5% of consumers support NN). There is a shades of grey process here where it's hard to point at the moment when it became dishonest, especially if you have to track back through multiple self-referencing stories.
Basically, Karl left the idea dangling, and in the future, this story is likely to be referenced to show that clearly consumers (98.5% of them!) approve NN. I am just trying to point out that the data does not support it. IN fact, one of the surveys is done by Mozilla... using online participants. Hmmm!
So yeah, I am often critical of surveys were the sample group isn't representative of the population as a whole, especially when it's filled with people who are mostly active and engaged on the topic.
On the post: Al Jazeera Gives A 'Voice To The Voiceless' By Killing News Comments
Re: Re:
Some resolve the issue by requiring that you are logged in via Facebook to comment. That seems to resolve part of the issue, as people are perhaps less likely to be obnoxious when their real name, profile, and list of friends isn't far away. Even then I can tell you that Facebook ain't paradise at times.
Removing comments or moving comments to third party systems (like using twitter or Facebook pages to "host" discussions is another option that some take. Mostly, it's to get the junk off the main pages and out of site of the public.
For the vast majority of people who do not comment on stories, there is no real loss. For them it's a benefit.
So I don't think the sites are being dishonest in saying they are doing this to benefit their readers. They cannot (or cannot afford to) properly moderate the comments on the thousands of stories they publish each week. If they cannot do it right,doing it at all may not be in the best interest of their readers.
Now, I accept and understand that it's not the way you see journalism in the digital age. That they don't agree with you doesn't make them wrong or worthy of mocking. Perhaps in some ways your own views need a reality check. It seems they have valid reasons to do what they do, and they explain it correctly.
On the post: AT&T Blatantly Lies, Claims Most Consumers Want Net Neutrality Killed
Repeating your lie over and over again will not make it the truth. The truth is not at all what you want it to be.
On the post: 98.5% Of Original Comments To The FCC Oppose Killing Net Neutrality
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: 98.5% Of Original Comments To The FCC Oppose Killing Net Neutrality
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If you explain it to them in pro-net neutrality terms, they will probably agree with. Then again, on anti-net neutrality terms, they could also agree if that is the only side of the story they hear.
My point is only that if most of the population is apathetic about net neutrality or have the opinion of "meh", they won't bother to fill out comments either way. So saying "98.5% are against" is meaningless because it's 98.5% of people who are versed enough on the subject, and they are generally all for net neutrality if they are interested in the topic.
When you consider that the total comments reaches a level of about 1% of the population, that sort of explains it all.
On the post: 98.5% Of Original Comments To The FCC Oppose Killing Net Neutrality
Re: Re: Re:
The question is the sample group. NN commenters are "self selecting" rather than being actively searched out. It's not like 1000 people were randomly called and asked their opinion. Instead, people who felt strongly about NN posted comments.
People who are for the currently (not totally implemented) net neutrality rules feel strongly about it, and thus are writing comments.
People who don't feel strongly about net neutrality pretty much say "meh" and not much else, and cannot be bothered to make a comment to explain why it's not important to them.
People here try to frame it as "for" or "against". The reality is that it is "for" and "don't care". Don't care types don't write comments. They don't care.
On the post: Developer Puts Game On The Pirate Bay Because Steam Key Resellers Are The Bigger Evil
Re: Re:
So the response is directly to a form of piracy, as the story says.
I know it's hard for you to grasp. Try. Just once.
On the post: 98.5% Of Original Comments To The FCC Oppose Killing Net Neutrality
It's on the level of asking people a room full of people with peanut allergies if they want nuts on the McSundae ice cream. Those who are there are there for a reason, and they will have a strong opinion. So in this case, 98.5% of people with a strong opinion about something very nebulous have the same opinion.
In other news, the sky appears blue to the human eye.
On the post: Developer Puts Game On The Pirate Bay Because Steam Key Resellers Are The Bigger Evil
On the post: NPR Gives Up On News Comments; After All, Who Cares What Your Customers Have To Say?
Re: Re:
Being a bastion of free speech and opinion exchange, Techdirt shouldn't get into editing, moderating, or holding comments at any time. I do think, however, that the flag button should only flag a post for moderators to consider, and not automatically remove posts. It creates a form of vigilante justice that is just not in keeping with the ideas of free speech and open comments.
Oh, and nice troll.
On the post: California Case Against Backpage Moves Forward Over Money Laundering Claims
The issue at hand is that sites like Backpage (and Craigslist) give away free ads, but generally only charge for "adult" ads. Much of the adult material is related to escorts and body rubs, both of which are illegal to varying degrees in almost all parts of the US. A US Senate committee that found the site knowingly aided users in posting ads for prostitution and child sex trafficking.
http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2017/01/10/backpage-com-shuts-down-adult-ads-after-senate-co mmittee-report/
Playing tricky games using outside shell companies to process the transactions creates the process by which funds are laundered. Backpage gets to charge for their ads for what is obviously an illegal service, but by doing it through a third party that is selling "credits" instead of ads directly, they create a method by which the funds are kept clean, away from the dirty ads.
Money laundering really only requires that the prosecutor shows that illegal acts are happening (duh, prostitution is everywhere), and that Backpage knew that many of the ads were for illegal services. The act of moving the processing out of the company creates the laundering effect (dirty money / clean money exchange). Backpage provides the dirty service, while the bp coins site selling credits and nothing else, sending nice clean money back to the site owners.
I don't think this is a good case for section 230. If anything, it's the perfect ammo for those who look to weaken the law. Backpage seems to be intent on pushing this until it breaks.
Next >>