One day when I was railing against the hypocrisy of Trump supporters someone had the brass neck to accuse me of attempting to impose my own brand of religion. I wasn't. My response: "I'm sick and tired of being tarred with the same brush as those who behave badly. If I can't complain about it or try to influence these people to change their ways, what can I do?"
It's the forgiving of "our friends" that's the problem. It's actually hit the church harder than any amount of atheist campaigning because it gives them a ton of ammo to use. As the Good Book says, you reap what you sow. That's why, when someone behaves badly, whether they're on "our team" or not, we need to call them out and hold them to account for it. Friends don't let friends behave badly.
In the end, the way to neutralize them is to first go after the "useful idiots" they use as pawns, which teaches other useful idiots that they will be suffering the consequences for grinding someone else's axe. "But...I read it on the internet!" is not a defense especially when they repost the lies in their own words. Then it's "But...I got caught up in it!" After that it's "I'm settling this just to put it behind me. You are committing legal extortion."
The "useful idiot" enabled my exoneration by proving it was a troll post. No harm done by her, and we're on better terms now. As for the fake consumer review site, it allowed me to put up a rebuttal, so no harm done by them. The only one doing any harm was the troll, who had direcly contacted my employers.
Actually, I'm not, I'm just suing the people I can reach, the ones dumb enough to believe some foreign troll website and use the supposed "comraderie" to continue acting on their own. Perhaps one day they'll go after the lawyers who set them up. If this happened to you, and you're a lawyer, odds are it was an adversary in a case who did it or masterminded it.
If no direct harm was done by the people you can reach you won't prevail. I'm not a lawyer and the troll is just a common troll who left enough clues to signpost that he was a troll. The harm is now just an anecdote I use to remind people that their own conduct does more to affect their reputations than what people say about them online.
Yeah... that happened to me, with real life consequences. Imagine the cost of tracking down a troll with a burner .ru email account. Now imagine going up against a website operated by people who will only remove the actually actionable elements of a troll post, then charge you for "SEO" to move it down the search results.
Basically, for this to succeed you'd have to know who the abuser is AND have the bread to pay for a lawsuit.
If shooting up churches (see Dylann Roof for details) and burning them down or driving cars into crowds (Heather Heyer was killed in this way in Charlottesville), then yes, I'd say they're dangerous.
Mike, I don't give a rat's who the people are, doxxing bad, end of.
It's not for Joe Bloggs to go out hunting Nazis or their sympathisers/enablers based on IP addresses (so much wrong...! Start with copyright trolling efforts and end with the Pizzagate debacle to see how identifying anyone as the Bad Guy tends to work out in practice), it's for the authorities.
"But they're g-d Nazis!" is no excuse for any behaviour you wouldn't want meted out to yourself, be it punching someone in the face or sharing their personal details online.
I don't like the buggers, but if it's acceptable to punch a Nazi because they're considered the bad guys (okay, that's actually true), one day it might be acceptable to punch Christians. I'm a Christian. One day it might be acceptable to punch Irish people. I'm Irish. One day it might be acceptable to punch women. I'm a woman. One day it might become acceptable to punch office workers. I work in an office. Can you see the problem here? Yes, I'm saying that doxxing is as harmful as physical violence because the real world hassle, from unwanted pizza deliveries to SWATting are harmful.
Come on, mate, it's not in the public interest to mark individuals out as targets on the off-chance that they still belong to or sympathise with a particular group. And before anyone mentions CP, innocent till proven guilty, okay? It's not our job to track down and punish people. That is the provenance of law enforcement.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Are baseless legal threats allowed?
True, but if we keep a record of each "clerical error" that we see, we can build a strong case for politicians to make laws that side with innocent victims against corporate aggressors.
As a side note, I've had experience of actual left wingers siding with copyright because the sweat of the brow argument appeals to them. We need to approach this in accordance with the prejudices of the people we're dealing with. On the right: law and order. On the left: it's theft from creators and the public.
True, but the squirming doesn't tend to play well in front of an audience. When people see how crooked they are they might change their minds about supporting them. I like the idea of being able to provide such conversations as evidence to my MP next time I complain to her about copyright overreach.
Here's the problem: copyright is automatically assigned to works in a fixed medium, i.e. a recording.
In order to assert it, however, it's got to be registered so you can prove you own it. This is why the current system sucks so much: it assumes that everyone owns works and makes no room for the public domain, which it treats as an anomaly or problem to be solved. The actual problem to be solved is copyright.
I believe it's worth going after UMG for fraud. Needless to say they will claim 'twas but an honest mistake, but if the only way to keep them honest is to report them for fraud every time they commit it, they will have to mend their ways.
On the post: Impeachment Hearings Highlight More Trump Phone OPSEC Failures
Re: Other numbers:
Confirmed correct on all counts.
One day when I was railing against the hypocrisy of Trump supporters someone had the brass neck to accuse me of attempting to impose my own brand of religion. I wasn't. My response: "I'm sick and tired of being tarred with the same brush as those who behave badly. If I can't complain about it or try to influence these people to change their ways, what can I do?"
It's the forgiving of "our friends" that's the problem. It's actually hit the church harder than any amount of atheist campaigning because it gives them a ton of ammo to use. As the Good Book says, you reap what you sow. That's why, when someone behaves badly, whether they're on "our team" or not, we need to call them out and hold them to account for it. Friends don't let friends behave badly.
On the post: Impeachment Hearings Highlight More Trump Phone OPSEC Failures
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Which can easily be cut through and which people have filmed themselves climbing.
On the post: Impeachment Hearings Highlight More Trump Phone OPSEC Failures
Re:
William Barr is one such example. He's smarter than Trump. I'm hoping he will be pulled down too.
On the post: Impeachment Hearings Highlight More Trump Phone OPSEC Failures
Re: Re: Re: Big fuss over nothing
From what I know of That One Guy, I can confidently assert he is being sarcastic. He hates Trump.
On the post: Universal Music Claims Copyright Over Newly Public Domain 'Yes! We Have No Bananas'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Are baseless legal threats allowed?
I do. It falls on deaf ears, I'm afraid. The man I spoke to was such an epic demagogue he wasn't interested in truth, just in confirming his bias.
On the post: Should Doxxing Be Illegal?
Re: Re: The "But they're g-d Nazis!" exception
Citation?
Having been on the receiving end of baseless assertions I'm not willing to believe anything anyone says without some evidence to back it up.
On the post: Should Doxxing Be Illegal?
Re: Re: Re:
In the end, the way to neutralize them is to first go after the "useful idiots" they use as pawns, which teaches other useful idiots that they will be suffering the consequences for grinding someone else's axe. "But...I read it on the internet!" is not a defense especially when they repost the lies in their own words. Then it's "But...I got caught up in it!" After that it's "I'm settling this just to put it behind me. You are committing legal extortion."
The "useful idiot" enabled my exoneration by proving it was a troll post. No harm done by her, and we're on better terms now. As for the fake consumer review site, it allowed me to put up a rebuttal, so no harm done by them. The only one doing any harm was the troll, who had direcly contacted my employers.
Actually, I'm not, I'm just suing the people I can reach, the ones dumb enough to believe some foreign troll website and use the supposed "comraderie" to continue acting on their own. Perhaps one day they'll go after the lawyers who set them up. If this happened to you, and you're a lawyer, odds are it was an adversary in a case who did it or masterminded it.
If no direct harm was done by the people you can reach you won't prevail. I'm not a lawyer and the troll is just a common troll who left enough clues to signpost that he was a troll. The harm is now just an anecdote I use to remind people that their own conduct does more to affect their reputations than what people say about them online.
On the post: Should Doxxing Be Illegal?
Re:
^This.
On the post: Should Doxxing Be Illegal?
Re:
Yeah... that happened to me, with real life consequences. Imagine the cost of tracking down a troll with a burner .ru email account. Now imagine going up against a website operated by people who will only remove the actually actionable elements of a troll post, then charge you for "SEO" to move it down the search results.
Basically, for this to succeed you'd have to know who the abuser is AND have the bread to pay for a lawsuit.
On the post: Should Doxxing Be Illegal?
Re:
Naturally.
On the post: Should Doxxing Be Illegal?
Re: Re: Re: Huh?
That's exactly how I read it: "F--- 'em, they're bad and they deserve it."
No good can come of adding to some loser's finely honed sense of grievance.
On the post: Should Doxxing Be Illegal?
Re:
If shooting up churches (see Dylann Roof for details) and burning them down or driving cars into crowds (Heather Heyer was killed in this way in Charlottesville), then yes, I'd say they're dangerous.
On the post: Should Doxxing Be Illegal?
The "But they're g-d Nazis!" exception
Mike, I don't give a rat's who the people are, doxxing bad, end of.
It's not for Joe Bloggs to go out hunting Nazis or their sympathisers/enablers based on IP addresses (so much wrong...! Start with copyright trolling efforts and end with the Pizzagate debacle to see how identifying anyone as the Bad Guy tends to work out in practice), it's for the authorities.
"But they're g-d Nazis!" is no excuse for any behaviour you wouldn't want meted out to yourself, be it punching someone in the face or sharing their personal details online.
I don't like the buggers, but if it's acceptable to punch a Nazi because they're considered the bad guys (okay, that's actually true), one day it might be acceptable to punch Christians. I'm a Christian. One day it might be acceptable to punch Irish people. I'm Irish. One day it might be acceptable to punch women. I'm a woman. One day it might become acceptable to punch office workers. I work in an office. Can you see the problem here? Yes, I'm saying that doxxing is as harmful as physical violence because the real world hassle, from unwanted pizza deliveries to SWATting are harmful.
Come on, mate, it's not in the public interest to mark individuals out as targets on the off-chance that they still belong to or sympathise with a particular group. And before anyone mentions CP, innocent till proven guilty, okay? It's not our job to track down and punish people. That is the provenance of law enforcement.
On the post: Universal Music Claims Copyright Over Newly Public Domain 'Yes! We Have No Bananas'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Are baseless legal threats allowed?
True, but if we keep a record of each "clerical error" that we see, we can build a strong case for politicians to make laws that side with innocent victims against corporate aggressors.
As a side note, I've had experience of actual left wingers siding with copyright because the sweat of the brow argument appeals to them. We need to approach this in accordance with the prejudices of the people we're dealing with. On the right: law and order. On the left: it's theft from creators and the public.
On the post: Universal Music Claims Copyright Over Newly Public Domain 'Yes! We Have No Bananas'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Are baseless legal threats allowed?
Agreed.
On the post: Universal Music Claims Copyright Over Newly Public Domain 'Yes! We Have No Bananas'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Yes! We have no morals.
True, but the squirming doesn't tend to play well in front of an audience. When people see how crooked they are they might change their minds about supporting them. I like the idea of being able to provide such conversations as evidence to my MP next time I complain to her about copyright overreach.
On the post: Universal Music Claims Copyright Over Newly Public Domain 'Yes! We Have No Bananas'
Re: Re: Re:
Here's the problem: copyright is automatically assigned to works in a fixed medium, i.e. a recording.
In order to assert it, however, it's got to be registered so you can prove you own it. This is why the current system sucks so much: it assumes that everyone owns works and makes no room for the public domain, which it treats as an anomaly or problem to be solved. The actual problem to be solved is copyright.
On the post: Universal Music Claims Copyright Over Newly Public Domain 'Yes! We Have No Bananas'
Re: Re:
But if Universal are claiming copyright infringement, they're committing fraud, aren't they?
On the post: Universal Music Claims Copyright Over Newly Public Domain 'Yes! We Have No Bananas'
Re: Re: Are baseless legal threats allowed?
I believe it's worth going after UMG for fraud. Needless to say they will claim 'twas but an honest mistake, but if the only way to keep them honest is to report them for fraud every time they commit it, they will have to mend their ways.
On the post: Universal Music Claims Copyright Over Newly Public Domain 'Yes! We Have No Bananas'
Re: Re: Are baseless legal threats allowed?
True, but UMG is committing fraud by claiming rights over a work that they no longer have.
Next >>