Well that's certainly impressive for all the wrong reasons, I wouldn't have thought that someone would see regular copyright extortionists and respond with 'challenge accepted' but for as sleazy as regular copyright extortionists are shaking down people going out of their way to try to comply with the law really cranks that sleaze to 11.
So congrats new batch of copyright extortionists, you somehow found a way to be even more vile than the previous batch of parasites, truly an accomplishment worthy of praise.
Hard to undermine something that's been burned to the ground
So, is anyone still pretending that Albright isn't corrupt as hell and deliberately turning his court into a patent extortionist heaven, or has he reached the point where even that's considered a bit too much of a stretch?
...
Ah who am I kidding, I'm sure the same CAFC that's given him a stern finger wagging for his previous refusals to follow the gorram law will look at this and shrug their shoulders again because judges would never fall to the dark side and are always operating in good faith even if it might not look like it.
As I understand it proving actual malice, that someone knew they were lying, knew that their lies were causing harm and yet continued to do so, is one of the biggest hurdles in defamation cases usually. This time around though it looks like that's not going to be such a problem and Fox is falling back on the tried and true 'It's not defamation because no one sensible would ever believe us' argument that's been making the rounds.
'Though I assure you I would never even think about breaking into someone's house and maybe 'borrowing' a few items I must object in the strongest terms against the proposed laws that would make those actions illegal. Even though once again I want to stress that I would never do that and the penalties would only apply to those that did they are still terrible laws that need to be stopped. Because reasons.'
Ultimately, from a user perspective, I think it comes down to who you trust more to represent your interests.
Social media are businesses, they're not there to represent your interests they are there to represent their own. If you walked into a Walmart thinking that their priority is you first and then the store you'd only be fooling yourself, and it's the same thing with online platforms.
But this doesn't necessarily mean that the platforms are.
As I noted just above social media are businesses, and as such their first concern is going to be 'will X be good for us?' This has the side effect that generally speaking their primary goal is going to be to make and keep their platform 'user friendly' for the majority of users so in a way their self-interest is what ensures that they will stand up for their users, because if they don't then they're likely to start losing them.
This isn't to say that they won't screw up at times, whether false positives or making changes that end up being something that makes things worse for users but for the most part they're going to try to keep the majority of users happy or at least content with what's on offer.
Re: Re: Too often, constitutional rights are defined by their ex
and inconvient ones at that as far as the government is concerned.
Which was a feature, not a bug, as the entire point was to put in place ironclad rules that were supposed to prevent the government from doing whatever they wanted, unfortunatley between corrupt and/or cowardly judges and legislators those 'ironclad' rules have been eroded quite a bit by this point and are far too often 'nudged' to the side to get them out of the way of The Good Guys.
'How dare you, it's OUR job to make killers famous!'
Having the news freak out over the idea that kids might do something stupid for attention when every time Some Asshole shoots up a place they plaster their face and name on every tv they can and spend countless hours talking about them is just a wee bit hypocritical to say the least.
If your rights can be tossed aside on a whim they aren't rights they're privileges, graciously granted by those above you and taken away just as easily.
There were just so many problems with the idea from the get-go, from the fact that reporting the numbers was entirely optional and the police had a vested interest in those numbers not being recorded to the the agencies involved likewise having no interest in anything that might make the police look bad and since honest numbers would definitely do that...
The point may have been to pay lip-service towards showing the scope of the problem and it certainly did that, just probably not in the way that it was originally intended.
'Of course I didn't steal anything, everyone was watching!'
ISPs arguing that network neutrality rules were scrapped and they didn't immediately start blatantly gouging customers(more than usual) is evidence that those rules weren't needed is the equivalent of a known pickpocket claiming that because they didn't obviously steal anything while everyone was watching them there's no need for rules against theft.
Network neutrality rules were in place because the ISPs had shown that they couldn't be trusted to act responsibly and not screw over their customers every chance they could get, if there was a healthy market those rules wouldn't be needed because their greatest fear in the form of Actual Competition would help reign them in but until that's the case there most certainly is a need for rules to at last set some boundaries on how badly they can gouge the public.
I mean yeah they're corrupt and incompetent but at the same time I can see how and why they'd get so sloppy and arrogant.
Given how long outfits like theirs are able to run rampant abusing the legal system for personal gain with basically zero consequence until the end it's not too hard to see why they'd come to believe that it's a zero-risk 'business' with no real skill needed beyond being a colossal asshole willing and eager to monetize the suffering of others required, and for the most part they're correct in thinking so.
Apparently Colette claimed that as a result of the lawsuits they filed, her enterprises are running out of money, she and her husband can't afford lawyers to help with the cases,
Well it's a good thing that much like other copyright extortionists they made absolutely sure that their would-be targets were flush with cash and more than capable of affording a lawyer to deal with MM's demands otherwise that would be a hilarious bit of turnabout deserving of zero sympathy but a bunch of mocking laughter.
Sucks to be on the other side of that doesn't it MM?
Oh how tragic, the top exec of a company who's entire business model is centered around making the lives of people miserable by abusing the court system wasn't having fun when they were presented with the options of 'show up in court voluntarily or show up in court in cuffs', what terrible news.
Whether the victim actually gets the full amount owed to them might be in the air but I can't imagine behavior like this would look good to other judges, which probably won't help MM in future extortion attempts.
Gotta love Steve Dallas lawsuits and forum shopping.
'Everyone involved is in the US but Twitter is a richer/easier target and Canada has worse intermediary protections so I'm gonna sue the company in Canada.'
Mike, Mike, you're an evangelical christian and Trump supporter, there isn't a person alive who looks at you and expects consistency when it comes to your actions and beliefs.
If you count 'self-centered, self-serving and grossly dishonest/deranged' I think I could safely say I expect him to act in a consistent manner.
But, even more to the point, US and EU politicians going out of their way to exaggerate and slam social media as a "threat to democracy" might want to think a bit more about how their words are being used, almost verbatim, as a justification around the globe to suppress free speech and political criticism.
I don't see why they would, he's merely doing blatantly what they're trying to do a little more subtlety, control the narrative and cripple alternative sources of information.
'How dare you stop giving me privileged treatment?!'
That's not even remotely true but even if it was the treatment he got was not equal but privileged right up until he lost the election and they decided to show him the door, so he would be the last person to be in a position to whine about how 'unfair' they are as all they did was actually start applying the rules to him.
On the post: Beware The CopyLEFT Trolls
Well that's certainly impressive for all the wrong reasons, I wouldn't have thought that someone would see regular copyright extortionists and respond with 'challenge accepted' but for as sleazy as regular copyright extortionists are shaking down people going out of their way to try to comply with the law really cranks that sleaze to 11.
So congrats new batch of copyright extortionists, you somehow found a way to be even more vile than the previous batch of parasites, truly an accomplishment worthy of praise.
On the post: Judge Albright Names Lawyer For Patent Trolls As New Magistrate Judge For Waco
Hard to undermine something that's been burned to the ground
So, is anyone still pretending that Albright isn't corrupt as hell and deliberately turning his court into a patent extortionist heaven, or has he reached the point where even that's considered a bit too much of a stretch?
...
Ah who am I kidding, I'm sure the same CAFC that's given him a stern finger wagging for his previous refusals to follow the gorram law will look at this and shrug their shoulders again because judges would never fall to the dark side and are always operating in good faith even if it might not look like it.
On the post: Delaware Court Says Dominion Voting Systems Can Continue Suing Fox News For $1.6 Billion In Defamation
Funny how often that argument's been used lately
As I understand it proving actual malice, that someone knew they were lying, knew that their lies were causing harm and yet continued to do so, is one of the biggest hurdles in defamation cases usually. This time around though it looks like that's not going to be such a problem and Fox is falling back on the tried and true 'It's not defamation because no one sensible would ever believe us' argument that's been making the rounds.
On the post: Dumb Telecom Take Of The Week: Because The Internet Didn't Explode, Killing Net Neutrality Must Not Have Mattered
The ISP's doth protest too much
'Though I assure you I would never even think about breaking into someone's house and maybe 'borrowing' a few items I must object in the strongest terms against the proposed laws that would make those actions illegal. Even though once again I want to stress that I would never do that and the penalties would only apply to those that did they are still terrible laws that need to be stopped. Because reasons.'
On the post: No, The Arguments Against Florida's & Texas' Content Moderation Bills Would Not Block All Internet Regulations
Re:
Ultimately, from a user perspective, I think it comes down to who you trust more to represent your interests.
Social media are businesses, they're not there to represent your interests they are there to represent their own. If you walked into a Walmart thinking that their priority is you first and then the store you'd only be fooling yourself, and it's the same thing with online platforms.
But this doesn't necessarily mean that the platforms are.
As I noted just above social media are businesses, and as such their first concern is going to be 'will X be good for us?' This has the side effect that generally speaking their primary goal is going to be to make and keep their platform 'user friendly' for the majority of users so in a way their self-interest is what ensures that they will stand up for their users, because if they don't then they're likely to start losing them.
This isn't to say that they won't screw up at times, whether false positives or making changes that end up being something that makes things worse for users but for the most part they're going to try to keep the majority of users happy or at least content with what's on offer.
On the post: Dumb Telecom Take Of The Week: Because The Internet Didn't Explode, Killing Net Neutrality Must Not Have Mattered
'If you had good arguments you wouldn't need to lie, and yet...'
Much like anti-230 arguments, yes, and isn't it just so very telling when the only arguments against a law are dishonest ones?
On the post: Tenth Circuit Appeals Court Says Fourth And Sixth Amendment Rights Are Meaningless When National Security Is On The Line
Re: Re: Too often, constitutional rights are defined by their ex
and inconvient ones at that as far as the government is concerned.
Which was a feature, not a bug, as the entire point was to put in place ironclad rules that were supposed to prevent the government from doing whatever they wanted, unfortunatley between corrupt and/or cowardly judges and legislators those 'ironclad' rules have been eroded quite a bit by this point and are far too often 'nudged' to the side to get them out of the way of The Good Guys.
On the post: Which Went More Viral Challenge: Local News Stories Or TikTok School Violence 'Challenge'?
'How dare you, it's OUR job to make killers famous!'
Having the news freak out over the idea that kids might do something stupid for attention when every time Some Asshole shoots up a place they plaster their face and name on every tv they can and spend countless hours talking about them is just a wee bit hypocritical to say the least.
On the post: Tenth Circuit Appeals Court Says Fourth And Sixth Amendment Rights Are Meaningless When National Security Is On The Line
One good judge from a pack of corrupt cowards...
If your rights can be tossed aside on a whim they aren't rights they're privileges, graciously granted by those above you and taken away just as easily.
On the post: Gov't Accountability Office Says FBI Should Probably Just Give Up The Use Of Force Reporting It Never Bothered Doing
Conflict of interest much?
There were just so many problems with the idea from the get-go, from the fact that reporting the numbers was entirely optional and the police had a vested interest in those numbers not being recorded to the the agencies involved likewise having no interest in anything that might make the police look bad and since honest numbers would definitely do that...
The point may have been to pay lip-service towards showing the scope of the problem and it certainly did that, just probably not in the way that it was originally intended.
On the post: Dumb Telecom Take Of The Week: Because The Internet Didn't Explode, Killing Net Neutrality Must Not Have Mattered
'Of course I didn't steal anything, everyone was watching!'
ISPs arguing that network neutrality rules were scrapped and they didn't immediately start blatantly gouging customers(more than usual) is evidence that those rules weren't needed is the equivalent of a known pickpocket claiming that because they didn't obviously steal anything while everyone was watching them there's no need for rules against theft.
Network neutrality rules were in place because the ISPs had shown that they couldn't be trusted to act responsibly and not screw over their customers every chance they could get, if there was a healthy market those rules wouldn't be needed because their greatest fear in the form of Actual Competition would help reign them in but until that's the case there most certainly is a need for rules to at last set some boundaries on how badly they can gouge the public.
On the post: Malibu Media Ordered To Pay Wrongfully Accused 'Pirate' Even More Money After Failing To Abide By Court's Decision
When the system rewards sleaze you get lots of it
I mean yeah they're corrupt and incompetent but at the same time I can see how and why they'd get so sloppy and arrogant.
Given how long outfits like theirs are able to run rampant abusing the legal system for personal gain with basically zero consequence until the end it's not too hard to see why they'd come to believe that it's a zero-risk 'business' with no real skill needed beyond being a colossal asshole willing and eager to monetize the suffering of others required, and for the most part they're correct in thinking so.
On the post: Malibu Media Ordered To Pay Wrongfully Accused 'Pirate' Even More Money After Failing To Abide By Court's Decision
'We're in this to GET money not PAY it!'
Apparently Colette claimed that as a result of the lawsuits they filed, her enterprises are running out of money, she and her husband can't afford lawyers to help with the cases,
Well it's a good thing that much like other copyright extortionists they made absolutely sure that their would-be targets were flush with cash and more than capable of affording a lawyer to deal with MM's demands otherwise that would be a hilarious bit of turnabout deserving of zero sympathy but a bunch of mocking laughter.
On the post: Malibu Media Ordered To Pay Wrongfully Accused 'Pirate' Even More Money After Failing To Abide By Court's Decision
Sucks to be on the other side of that doesn't it MM?
Oh how tragic, the top exec of a company who's entire business model is centered around making the lives of people miserable by abusing the court system wasn't having fun when they were presented with the options of 'show up in court voluntarily or show up in court in cuffs', what terrible news.
Whether the victim actually gets the full amount owed to them might be in the air but I can't imagine behavior like this would look good to other judges, which probably won't help MM in future extortion attempts.
On the post: Canada Strikes Again: Allows Lawsuit Against Twitter To Proceed Over Speech Of Twitter Users
'Yeah but the light is better over here.'
Gotta love Steve Dallas lawsuits and forum shopping.
'Everyone involved is in the US but Twitter is a richer/easier target and Canada has worse intermediary protections so I'm gonna sue the company in Canada.'
On the post: Court Tells MyPillow CEO That Allegedly Dating An Actress And Buying Her Alcohol Isn't Defamatory
Re:
Mike, Mike, you're an evangelical christian and Trump supporter, there isn't a person alive who looks at you and expects consistency when it comes to your actions and beliefs.
If you count 'self-centered, self-serving and grossly dishonest/deranged' I think I could safely say I expect him to act in a consistent manner.
On the post: The Senate's Finsta Problem
'Look at us Doing Something!'
'How dare the CFAA-violating accounts we created specifically in order to get a certain result return those results?! Something Needs To Be Done!'
On the post: Turkey's Dictator Erdogan, Who Has Sued Thousands Of Critics, Jailed More, Now Claims That 'Social Media' Is A 'Threat To Democracy'
... that's the point though
But, even more to the point, US and EU politicians going out of their way to exaggerate and slam social media as a "threat to democracy" might want to think a bit more about how their words are being used, almost verbatim, as a justification around the globe to suppress free speech and political criticism.
I don't see why they would, he's merely doing blatantly what they're trying to do a little more subtlety, control the narrative and cripple alternative sources of information.
On the post: Birds Aren't Real, And Kids Are Not So Susceptible To Conspiracy Theories (Their Parents On The Other Hand...)
The kids are mostly fine. The adults though...
Thinking the battlecry/excuse might need a little tweaking, from 'Save the children!' to 'Save the children from us!'
On the post: DOJ Tells Courts They Don't Need To Explore The Constitutionality Of Section 230 To Toss Donald Trump's Dumb Lawsuits Out
'How dare you stop giving me privileged treatment?!'
That's not even remotely true but even if it was the treatment he got was not equal but privileged right up until he lost the election and they decided to show him the door, so he would be the last person to be in a position to whine about how 'unfair' they are as all they did was actually start applying the rules to him.
Next >>