So…yeah, that says a lot about Ridley Scott’s taste in scripts if that’s the kind of story he thinks people want to see these days.
To also be fair, in the interview, he explains that he felt this was actually interesting in highlighting a kind of early "me too" scenario, in which the woman Marguerite de Carrouges actually stood up and accused Le Gris of rape at a time when it was next to unheard of for a woman to do so. So he claimed that he thought the time was ripe for a "me too" hero from centuries ago.
No, you don't, Koby. You don't. You have no savvy at all.
how media has failed
You are conflating many things here, because it suits your ignorant narrative. The media makes plenty of mistakes. We call them on their mistakes all the time here. But EVEN SO, you are deflecting from the fact that (1) just because they make some mistakes is not he same as (2) all reporting that disfavors the idol you worship is wrong and (more importantly) (3) none of that means that Trump gets to tell the Pulitzers what to do and who they should award a prize to.
I think you would do well to also explore how it has gone from being trusted, so being ridiculed by large swaths of the population
I've written extensively on the problems in the media -- but much of that is driven by them trying to appease grifters like you, and supporting the idea that there are "two sides" to every issue. In other words, the distrust in the media has been driven by your heroes exploiting the system, not a few reporting mistakes like you claim.
Childish name calling won't make the problem go away and regain the media's reputation.
I'm not here to "regain the media's reputation" and I call you names because you're a fucking ignorant troll. I engaged with you politely in the past. But you continued to lie and spew nonsense, and you refused to respond to multiple requests to back up your nonsense. So, I will call you names, not because it's childish, but because you deserve it, you ignorant buffoon.
Re: Re: Re: Not a 1st Amendment issue, not censorship
Psst: civil suits that seek to enjoin or punish speech are using state action to suppress speech and are inherently a 1st Amendment issue. I mean, if you knew anything at all about the law you would know this.
Koby, you're an ignorant fool or an easily mislead buffoon.
You have spent years on this site spewing blatant false information. You're misunderstanding of how media works is not surprising, but really, you should shut the fuck up.
What is? Be specific. What is the "egregious moral mistake" here?
Decisions like this is why trust in the press, and america's institutions are declining
Lol. Koby, you regularly cite debunked nonsense talking points from Fox News. Shut the fuck up.
Pulitzer has a pretty clear decision to make: take away the the award, or say goodbye to their credibility.
Again, why should they take away the award when it was awarded for ACCURATE reporting? Again, the reporting that won the award was not about the dossier. So, please, educate us.
And the Washington Post has already had to "correct" over a dozen articles about this debunked nonsense.
And how many stories have Trump-loving publications corrected regarding false allegations of voter fraud? Or made up claims about "anti-conservative" bias?
It's really telling on yourself when your principles are so malleable and flexible that you determine the legal results you want by what entities you like and don't like.
I note that you didn't append your silly "if they try to censor you, you're right" tags to this comment, Kobes. Wonder why.
Also, the rest of what you wrote is bullshit. PV says that the FBI leaked it, but the Times insists that's not the case, and EITHER WAY none of that excuses prior restraint, you censorial ignoramus.
I don't think that's accurate. It's not so much about apps, as it is about data and who gets access to it -- and she does note (correctly, imo) that it would be different if the bill enabled consumers to make those decisions for themselves (you insist she ignores that, but she has a whole paragraph on that). The problem is the way the bill is written, it's not the consumers deciding. It's 3rd parties.
I'm more interested in an experiment where you take a YouTube viewer who starts with a slightly "disinformation" video request or inbound link, then where does the random walk take them. Because I think THAT's what's happening.
"Content moderation at scale is TOO EXPENSIVE." There.
Nope. I mean, Facebook spends more on content moderation than Twitter makes in revenue each year. It's not like they're not spending on it. Saying that it's too expensive shows you are ignorant of the scale here, just as the point of this post was trying to show. Thanks for confirming your ignorance.
Can I flag this article for being misleading at best?
You can do what you want. But it would help if you explained what was misleading.
I think the opinion ignores the elephant in the room, engagement. If engagement drops, it follows that advertising drops. The advertising revenue being artificially held steady makes for a misleading opinion.
Addressed in the piece. So which part was misleading?
On the post: Why Are Drug Prices So High? Because Asshole McKinsey Consultants Figure Out Ways To Re-Patent The Same Drugs Over And Over
Re:
University tech transfer offices divide up the money between the inventor, the university, and the company,
That must be why 87% of university tech transfer offices cost more than they brought in... https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20131122/01322825335/patenting-university-research-has-been-dismal -failure-enabling-patent-trolling-its-time-to-stop.shtml
So, no, the pharma companies definitely get the vast majority of the profits.
On the post: Ridley Scott Blames His Latest Movie Bombing At The Box Office On Facebook And Millennials, Rather Than Pandemic And Poor Marketing
Re:
So…yeah, that says a lot about Ridley Scott’s taste in scripts if that’s the kind of story he thinks people want to see these days.
To also be fair, in the interview, he explains that he felt this was actually interesting in highlighting a kind of early "me too" scenario, in which the woman Marguerite de Carrouges actually stood up and accused Le Gris of rape at a time when it was next to unheard of for a woman to do so. So he claimed that he thought the time was ripe for a "me too" hero from centuries ago.
On the post: Donald Trump Says He's Going To Sue The Pulitzer Committee If They Don't Take Away The NY Times And WaPo Pulitzers
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Credebility Loss
I have more than enough savvy
No, you don't, Koby. You don't. You have no savvy at all.
how media has failed
You are conflating many things here, because it suits your ignorant narrative. The media makes plenty of mistakes. We call them on their mistakes all the time here. But EVEN SO, you are deflecting from the fact that (1) just because they make some mistakes is not he same as (2) all reporting that disfavors the idol you worship is wrong and (more importantly) (3) none of that means that Trump gets to tell the Pulitzers what to do and who they should award a prize to.
I think you would do well to also explore how it has gone from being trusted, so being ridiculed by large swaths of the population
I've written extensively on the problems in the media -- but much of that is driven by them trying to appease grifters like you, and supporting the idea that there are "two sides" to every issue. In other words, the distrust in the media has been driven by your heroes exploiting the system, not a few reporting mistakes like you claim.
Childish name calling won't make the problem go away and regain the media's reputation.
I'm not here to "regain the media's reputation" and I call you names because you're a fucking ignorant troll. I engaged with you politely in the past. But you continued to lie and spew nonsense, and you refused to respond to multiple requests to back up your nonsense. So, I will call you names, not because it's childish, but because you deserve it, you ignorant buffoon.
On the post: Donald Trump Says He's Going To Sue The Pulitzer Committee If They Don't Take Away The NY Times And WaPo Pulitzers
Re: Re: Re: Not a 1st Amendment issue, not censorship
Psst: civil suits that seek to enjoin or punish speech are using state action to suppress speech and are inherently a 1st Amendment issue. I mean, if you knew anything at all about the law you would know this.
On the post: Donald Trump Says He's Going To Sue The Pulitzer Committee If They Don't Take Away The NY Times And WaPo Pulitzers
Re: Re: Re: Credebility Loss
Koby, you're an ignorant fool or an easily mislead buffoon.
You have spent years on this site spewing blatant false information. You're misunderstanding of how media works is not surprising, but really, you should shut the fuck up.
On the post: Donald Trump Says He's Going To Sue The Pulitzer Committee If They Don't Take Away The NY Times And WaPo Pulitzers
Re: Credebility Loss
But this a rather egregious moral mistake.
What is? Be specific. What is the "egregious moral mistake" here?
Decisions like this is why trust in the press, and america's institutions are declining
Lol. Koby, you regularly cite debunked nonsense talking points from Fox News. Shut the fuck up.
Pulitzer has a pretty clear decision to make: take away the the award, or say goodbye to their credibility.
Again, why should they take away the award when it was awarded for ACCURATE reporting? Again, the reporting that won the award was not about the dossier. So, please, educate us.
On the post: Donald Trump Says He's Going To Sue The Pulitzer Committee If They Don't Take Away The NY Times And WaPo Pulitzers
Re:
And the Washington Post has already had to "correct" over a dozen articles about this debunked nonsense.
And how many stories have Trump-loving publications corrected regarding false allegations of voter fraud? Or made up claims about "anti-conservative" bias?
A good news org issues corrections when they make mistakes. But the underlying reporting that was behind these Pulitzers was not faulty. I'm among the first to call out bullshit reporting by the major publications (including the NY Times and WaPo, see: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20211027/00044947827/let-me-rewrite-that-you-washington-post-misin forms-you-about-how-facebook-weighted-emoji-reactions.shtml and https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20210822/23380147412/ny-times-washington-post-criticize-facebook-b ecause-chicago-tribune-had-terrible-headline.shtml ) but this is totally unrelated to your dear leader demanding someone change their opinion or face legal consequences.
Can't you admit that your idol is a censorial buffoon here? Or is that too much for you?
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re:
Thad One Guy?
Fixed...
On the post: Miramax's Bizarrely Ridiculous Lawsuit Against Quentin Tarantino Over His Pulp Fiction NFTs
Re:
It's really telling on yourself when your principles are so malleable and flexible that you determine the legal results you want by what entities you like and don't like.
On the post: Hypocrite Grifters Project Veritas Scream About Press Freedom, Then Run To Court To Silence The NY Times
Re: Collusion
I note that you didn't append your silly "if they try to censor you, you're right" tags to this comment, Kobes. Wonder why.
Also, the rest of what you wrote is bullshit. PV says that the FBI leaked it, but the Times insists that's not the case, and EITHER WAY none of that excuses prior restraint, you censorial ignoramus.
On the post: Lawsuit Claims A Zoom Call Was Unlawful Imprisonment
Re: Not just false imprisonment
Looking at the lawsuit... I don't think any of them have a chance.
On the post: Rupert Murdoch Spreads False Claim Biden FCC Nom Wants To 'Censor Conservatives.' NewsMax & OAN Immediately Prove Him Wrong.
Re: Newsmax and OAN are clueless
Lol, wut?
On the post: Klobuchar, Cotton Competition Bill Latest To Pretend 'Big Tech' Is The Only Industry With Problems
Re: But They're Doing It Too!
Because the other industries don't directly threaten the nation's basic constitutional liberties.
Neither do any of the big tech companies.
The first amendment doesn't give you the right to an airplane trip, or the right to fill up your fuel tank.
Nor does it give you the right to post on someone else's website, Koby. In fact, it provides those websites the right to moderate how they want.
The right to free speech is paramount.
Right. Including the right for a private company to moderate the content on their own website. That's part of the 1st Amendment.
On the post: Data Privacy Is The Price Of The Latest Antitrust Proposals
Re:
I don't think that's accurate. It's not so much about apps, as it is about data and who gets access to it -- and she does note (correctly, imo) that it would be different if the bill enabled consumers to make those decisions for themselves (you insist she ignores that, but she has a whole paragraph on that). The problem is the way the bill is written, it's not the consumers deciding. It's 3rd parties.
On the post: Internet Archive Would Like To Know What The Association Of American Publishers Is Hiding
Re:
Yeah, just noticed that. The correct doc is now there...
On the post: The Whole YouTube Radicalizes People Story Doesn't Seem To Have Much Evidence To Back It Up
Re: People Get What They Seek
I'm more interested in an experiment where you take a YouTube viewer who starts with a slightly "disinformation" video request or inbound link, then where does the random walk take them. Because I think THAT's what's happening.
Read again. That's exactly what the study did.
On the post: Surprising, But Important: Facebook Sorta Shuts Down Its Face Recognition System
Re: Rarely Is It Not About Money
I'll betcha that another 1/3 of Facebook users found the tool to be really creepy and interacted with FB less because of it.
Uh, no way that actually happened. Why are you making shit up?
On the post: Surprising, But Important: Facebook Sorta Shuts Down Its Face Recognition System
Re:
Who said anything about trusting him?
On the post: The Scale Of Content Moderation Is Unfathomable
Re:
"Content moderation at scale is TOO EXPENSIVE." There.
Nope. I mean, Facebook spends more on content moderation than Twitter makes in revenue each year. It's not like they're not spending on it. Saying that it's too expensive shows you are ignorant of the scale here, just as the point of this post was trying to show. Thanks for confirming your ignorance.
On the post: When Facebook Turned Off Its News Feed Algorithm, It Made Everyone's Experience Worse... But Made Facebook More Money
Re:
Can I flag this article for being misleading at best?
You can do what you want. But it would help if you explained what was misleading.
I think the opinion ignores the elephant in the room, engagement. If engagement drops, it follows that advertising drops. The advertising revenue being artificially held steady makes for a misleading opinion.
Addressed in the piece. So which part was misleading?
Next >>