It's hard to know where to start with your ridiculously naive attitude to reporting on the police. TD publishes stories of police breaking the law, abusing their power, abusing the public, destroying property, etc. That's because these things are NOT SUPPOSED TO HAPPEN! Why would you expect to read about the police following the law and respecting the public? THAT'S THEIR JOB! Are you equally upset that nobody writes stories about you when you simply do a good day's work? Sorry, you'll have to defraud your employer or murder a workmate for that!
And using the term 'fake news' just highlights your ignorance. You're leaning dangerously toward the braindead Trumpian definition of 'stories I don't like to hear'. If the stories published here are factual and accurate, then they're NOT fake! If you think they're not factual or accurate you're welcome to point out what's incorrect. 'Real news' does not have to present both sides of an issue unless both sides are newsworthy. Police doing something exceptionally good OR bad is newsworthy; simply doing the job they're paid to is not.
Also don't forget that there is a deep culture in protectionism within the police, which is understandable and worthy up to a point, but not when there is zero condemnation of fellow officers' egregious behavior. Bad cops should not be protected either officially by superiors and unions, or unofficially by the inaction of good cops.
"It's not a martyr complex when that stuff actually happens."
You're right, it would be a martyr complex if any of that stuff actually happened, no nobody other than may a fringe loony or two have made those claims. Stop making lame strawman arguments.
"I've seen BLM supporters go "He's white! BEAT HIS ASS!""
No you haven't. Maybe you read that someone said they heard someone say something dumb once.
"As an industry, movies do not make "gobs of money"..."
Nice little twist of words there; was it intentional? Individual movies may not make huge profits but the movie industry sure as hell does. The whole industry model is to rip off as many people as possible to make as much money as possible. They have zero moral high ground, so defending them with moral arguments is a waste of time and effort.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: At the heart of Techdirt there is a lie
"Look, Paul (if that's your name), you're a superior schmuck, right?"
Well he's doing a superior job repeatedly asking you for the proof of something you keep calling 'provable', and you're doing a superior job of deflecting and ignoring every request. The obvious conclusion is that you're full of shit.
"I doubt anyone there but law enforcement had true assault rifles..."
Well by your definition even the police don’t have assault rifles (pretty sure theirs are also semi-auto), and by multiple accounts they had even less than that, and held back because they felt at a disadvantage.
"...considering the definition of those pertains to rifles that fore more than one bullet per trigger squeeze."
Is that formalized somewhere? Codified in law maybe? I don’t see why a civilian semi-auto version of a weapon originally designed for military use can't be called an assault rifle. I don’t think it's an inflammatory label, it seems quite accurate. They weren't designed for hunting or target shooting and then up-spec'd for the military. They were designed to kill people and then had the full-auto functionality removed for sale to civilians. But if the term offends you so much, what exactly should we be calling them?
"But hey, go ahead and intentionally try to mislead the people with your agenda based definitions so that you can continue to try and convince people that discrimination based upon appearances is okay. Rifles today, and maybe people tomorrow?"
Wow, apparently I'm on a far slipperier slope than I ever realized, and also have immense powers of persuasion... Who exactly am I misleading here? Anybody who's seen the photos can make their own judgement about the type of weapons being carried and how effective/dangerous/bad-ass they really are. Even if the guns and armor were really just plastic fakes, they were carried and worn for a purpose. I've stated my opinion on what I believe the purpose was, I invite you to do the same.
You don't carry an assault rifle (NOT a 'sporting' rifle) with multiple magazines and wear camo and body armor when you want a peaceful situation. At the very least you're trying to aggressively intimidate people you know won't be armed and armored anywhere near the same way. I'm sure they were also well aware they outgunned the police. Peaceful my ass.
If the only way you can learn the history of slavery and the Civil War is through statues in parks that celebrate the men who led the deservedly losing side then you're probably too stupid to learn anything.
It's almost as if you think replacing one bad thing with another bad thing doesn't warrant any discussion or criticism, and don't see the irony in mocking Techdirt for the "douchiness" of doing so.
*"Yes, the platforms could be useful, but then they would have to go out of the office and actually investigate..."*
I think maybe you misunderstood? Platforms like Backpage have helped law enforcement agencies by providing them into on users suspected of illegal activities like sex trafficking. It's not Backpage who leave the office and investigate anything.
"Funny how you don't mention the Jane Doe case, Mike. You know, the reason they're pushing this legislation."
Not even the press release announcing the bill mentions a Jane Doe, so maybe you could enlighten us?
"Also funny how you never discuss the COSTS of Section 230."
Fell free to discuss them. We're all ears.
"You just cherry pick the benefits."
Without the protections of 230 many of the websites you're familiar with (and thousands you're not) that have user-generated content would likely not exist or be a shadow of their current selves. Big sites like YouTube and Facebook would probably never have reached a fraction of the size they are. So that's a pretty significant benefit to cherry pick.
*"And this is doubly ridiculous because the tech industry has worked closely with law enforcement over the years to combat trafficking, creating a variety of tech platforms and using big data to help find, target and stop trafficking."*
So why don't we hear an outcry from these law enforcement agencies? If there's a genuine interest from them in combating trafficking (and it bothers me I had to start that with an 'if'...) then they should be telling lawmakers how helpful the platforms can be, preferably loudly in public but in private if delicate egos must me protected.
I had to go back and check, since I didn't even remember the swearing and it clearly didn't distract me from the excellent message one bit. So it might just be your sensitive nature and misunderstanding of what an opinion blog is.
Never in the years I've been here have I seen Techdirt commenters get trolled so badly. It's been damn embarrassing to read so many of the responses to this clown.
"(and yeah, this is regulating the internet. Regulating ISPs, and how people interact with the internet is regulating the fucking internet)"
The more you claim this the stupider you look. I'm genuinely not sure if you're being deliberately obtuse because you're paid to be or if you really just don't understand the difference.
So one more time, please explain how US regulations that target the bad behaviors of US ISP's have any effect whatsoever on The Actual Internet accessible to most people all over the planet.
On the post: Deputy Who Rear-Ended Driver At 104 MPH Had Horrendous Service Record, Received Almost Zero Discipline
Re: Re: wait...
And using the term 'fake news' just highlights your ignorance. You're leaning dangerously toward the braindead Trumpian definition of 'stories I don't like to hear'. If the stories published here are factual and accurate, then they're NOT fake! If you think they're not factual or accurate you're welcome to point out what's incorrect. 'Real news' does not have to present both sides of an issue unless both sides are newsworthy. Police doing something exceptionally good OR bad is newsworthy; simply doing the job they're paid to is not.
Also don't forget that there is a deep culture in protectionism within the police, which is understandable and worthy up to a point, but not when there is zero condemnation of fellow officers' egregious behavior. Bad cops should not be protected either officially by superiors and unions, or unofficially by the inaction of good cops.
On the post: YouTube Briefly Nukes Video Of Nazi Symbol Destruction For Violating Hate Speech Rules
Re: Re: Re:
"It's not a martyr complex when that stuff actually happens."
You're right, it would be a martyr complex if any of that stuff actually happened, no nobody other than may a fringe loony or two have made those claims. Stop making lame strawman arguments.
"I've seen BLM supporters go "He's white! BEAT HIS ASS!""
No you haven't. Maybe you read that someone said they heard someone say something dumb once.
On the post: The MPAA Narrative About Piracy Flips To Danger From Pirate Sites Now That It Has Lost The Moral Argument
Re: Re: "Lost the moral battle", eh?
"All these dope smoking hippies have no morals or scruples..."
Now they run the MPAA, etc...
On the post: The MPAA Narrative About Piracy Flips To Danger From Pirate Sites Now That It Has Lost The Moral Argument
Re: Let me see if I follow...
"As an industry, movies do not make "gobs of money"..."
Nice little twist of words there; was it intentional? Individual movies may not make huge profits but the movie industry sure as hell does. The whole industry model is to rip off as many people as possible to make as much money as possible. They have zero moral high ground, so defending them with moral arguments is a waste of time and effort.
On the post: Once Again, Rather Than Deleting Terrorist Propaganda, YouTube Deletes Evidence Of War Crimes
Re: A Question For Michael Masnick, the Techdirt Supremacist
"...idiot ideas like abolishing constitutional protections for inventors."
No such thing.
On the post: Once Again, Rather Than Deleting Terrorist Propaganda, YouTube Deletes Evidence Of War Crimes
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: At the heart of Techdirt there is a lie
"Look, Paul (if that's your name), you're a superior schmuck, right?"
Well he's doing a superior job repeatedly asking you for the proof of something you keep calling 'provable', and you're doing a superior job of deflecting and ignoring every request. The obvious conclusion is that you're full of shit.
On the post: Former FCC Commissioner Tries To Claim Net Neutrality Has Aided The Rise Of White Supremacy
Re:
On the post: Defending Hateful Speech Is Unpleasant But Essential, Even When Violence Is The End Result
Re: Re: Re:
"I doubt anyone there but law enforcement had true assault rifles..."
Well by your definition even the police don’t have assault rifles (pretty sure theirs are also semi-auto), and by multiple accounts they had even less than that, and held back because they felt at a disadvantage.
"...considering the definition of those pertains to rifles that fore more than one bullet per trigger squeeze."
Is that formalized somewhere? Codified in law maybe? I don’t see why a civilian semi-auto version of a weapon originally designed for military use can't be called an assault rifle. I don’t think it's an inflammatory label, it seems quite accurate. They weren't designed for hunting or target shooting and then up-spec'd for the military. They were designed to kill people and then had the full-auto functionality removed for sale to civilians. But if the term offends you so much, what exactly should we be calling them?
"But hey, go ahead and intentionally try to mislead the people with your agenda based definitions so that you can continue to try and convince people that discrimination based upon appearances is okay. Rifles today, and maybe people tomorrow?"
Wow, apparently I'm on a far slipperier slope than I ever realized, and also have immense powers of persuasion... Who exactly am I misleading here? Anybody who's seen the photos can make their own judgement about the type of weapons being carried and how effective/dangerous/bad-ass they really are. Even if the guns and armor were really just plastic fakes, they were carried and worn for a purpose. I've stated my opinion on what I believe the purpose was, I invite you to do the same.
On the post: Defending Hateful Speech Is Unpleasant But Essential, Even When Violence Is The End Result
Re:
"GUN TOTING! - peaceful and legal."
You don't carry an assault rifle (NOT a 'sporting' rifle) with multiple magazines and wear camo and body armor when you want a peaceful situation. At the very least you're trying to aggressively intimidate people you know won't be armed and armored anywhere near the same way. I'm sure they were also well aware they outgunned the police. Peaceful my ass.
On the post: Defending Hateful Speech Is Unpleasant But Essential, Even When Violence Is The End Result
Re: Re: here is how it will go down
On the post: Disney Pulls Content From Netflix As Users Face An Annoying, Confusing Rise In Streaming Exclusivity Silos
Re:
On the post: Section 230 Matters. Congress Needs To Be Reminded Of That
Re: Re:
I think maybe you misunderstood? Platforms like Backpage have helped law enforcement agencies by providing them into on users suspected of illegal activities like sex trafficking. It's not Backpage who leave the office and investigate anything.
On the post: Section 230 Matters. Congress Needs To Be Reminded Of That
Re:
"Funny how you don't mention the Jane Doe case, Mike. You know, the reason they're pushing this legislation."
Not even the press release announcing the bill mentions a Jane Doe, so maybe you could enlighten us?
"Also funny how you never discuss the COSTS of Section 230."
Fell free to discuss them. We're all ears.
"You just cherry pick the benefits."
Without the protections of 230 many of the websites you're familiar with (and thousands you're not) that have user-generated content would likely not exist or be a shadow of their current selves. Big sites like YouTube and Facebook would probably never have reached a fraction of the size they are. So that's a pretty significant benefit to cherry pick.
On the post: Section 230 Matters. Congress Needs To Be Reminded Of That
So why don't we hear an outcry from these law enforcement agencies? If there's a genuine interest from them in combating trafficking (and it bothers me I had to start that with an 'if'...) then they should be telling lawmakers how helpful the platforms can be, preferably loudly in public but in private if delicate egos must me protected.
On the post: Congress Gives The FCC An Earful On Its Despised Plan To Kill Net Neutrality
Re:
On the post: Congress Gives The FCC An Earful On Its Despised Plan To Kill Net Neutrality
Re:
On the post: Monkey Selfie Case May Settle: PETA Knows It'll Lose, And The Photographer Is Broke
Re: Re: 'John' -- Care to Share?
On the post: Over 190 Engineers & Tech Experts Tell The FCC It's Dead Wrong On Net Neutrality
Re:
"(and yeah, this is regulating the internet. Regulating ISPs, and how people interact with the internet is regulating the fucking internet)"
The more you claim this the stupider you look. I'm genuinely not sure if you're being deliberately obtuse because you're paid to be or if you really just don't understand the difference.
So one more time, please explain how US regulations that target the bad behaviors of US ISP's have any effect whatsoever on The Actual Internet accessible to most people all over the planet.
On the post: Alex Mauer Gets Another Game Taken Down From Steam Via DMCA As She Sends Imagos' Lawyer Death Threats
Re: Re: Alex Mauer is crazy
"I think it's very probable, given her actions, that she is mentally ill."
Current Twitter background: holding a knife to her own throat. So, yeah...
On the post: Verizon Throttles Netflix Subscribers In 'Test' It Doesn't Inform Customers About
Re: Re: Re: Not Correct....
"Netflix just happens to be a huge bandwidth hog..."
You mean Netflix has a lot of customers who want content. Or did you really mean to sound like an ISP shill...
Next >>