Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why the headline is false(READ)
Dude, the person who posted the articles essentially admitted that they don’t actually disprove the actual headline. They admitted that they don’t prove that conservatives care one way or the other about copyright, which would be necessary to disprove the headline. They merely assert that liberals are corrupt regarding copyright (irrelevant) and that there isn’t enough evidence to prove that conservatives don’t care (which gets the burden of proof wrong).
Also, why is it so hard to believe that a person commenting on Techdirt read one of several given articles on Techdirt?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why the headline is false(READ)
No, he’s not!
Yes, he is!
No, he’s not!
Do you see how ridiculous this is?
Also, it’s rather ridiculous to assume a commenter on Techdirt did not read any of the listed Techdirt articles without evidence to back up that assumption.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why the headline is false(READ)
I can do this all day.
An argument isn’t just contradiction. An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition. Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of anything the other person says.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why the headline is false(READ)
An argument isn’t just contradiction. An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition. Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of anything the other person says.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why the headline is
That doesn't make sense. The reason why it isn't true is becaue you cannot tie conservatives to being in bed with the copyright/entertainment industry to being in bed with them to secretly push through authoritarian/draconian copyright bills/internet policies, such as the SOPA/PIPA, and TPP. They haven't because they are corrupt and are not
You’re completely missing the point. The headline itself doesn’t even imply ties between conservatives and being in bed with the copyright/entertainment industry or any of that. That’s all irrelevant to what the headline actually says.
Just because the Trump administration weren't pushing copyright laws/internet policies at the Copyright industries behest, does not mean the headline "Why Don't Conservatives Care About Copyright?" is true.
They weren’t pushing copyright reform, either, which is the main point, nor were they actively opposing copyright maximalist efforts. That does imply that the headline is true: taking no action at all and not speaking up on an issue tends to imply a lack of concern with that particular issue.
More to the point, you weren’t simply saying that the headline wasn’t adequately supported; you said the headline was actually false. As such, the burden of proof is on you to refute the headline by showing examples of conservatives caring about copyright rather than on us to show that conservatives don’t care. You’re making the positive claim here.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why the head
Regardless, the headline itself only says “Why Don’t Conservatives Care About Copyright?”. In context, it’s clear that one should add “as much as they do §230” to that. You haven’t provided evidence that that is false, and with the addendum, you seem to think it’s true even if you believe there’s a good reason or that liberals are just as bad, neither of which are relevant to the question of whether the headline is, in fact, true or false.
Instead, it seems you take issue with other things unrelated to whether the headline itself is true or false, which is what the whole thing started with.
Serious question: what do you suppose actually changed between your first and third? It probably wasn’t a switch simply because, well, why would they flip it back?
That doesn’t make the point invalid. In fact, it suggests that what you call “all the sock-puppets” are not actually sock-puppets. After all, most of the points made are regarding the most reliable indicators for a sock-puppet account.
Explain the 43 month gap in your comment history, then, like dozens of other "accounts" that only support Techdirt.
Real life worries, lack of time, temporary lack of interest, not having anything new to add… There are a number of perfectly reasonable explanations.
Also, regarding the “supporting Techdirt” part, I would surmise that 1) most (though certainly not all) people who sign up for a Techdirt account generally have similar opinions as Techdirt and 2) people who visit a site frequently despite disliking/disagreeing with most or all of its content are more likely to post comments and do so more frequently than those with a neutral or supportive stance regarding Techdirt’s content, followed by those who support Techdirt. (If you’re wondering how 2 can be reconciled with the fact that most comments tend to be supportive, a) people who dislike/disagree with most or all of the content on a site are far less likely to stick around than those who like/agree with it, and b) perhaps more people who learn about Techdirt to begin with tend to have similar views on the content on this site.)
Looks like zombie, smells like zombie, I reasonably conclude IS a zombie. -- Based on FACTS available to everyone.
No one’s disputing that (if by “zombie” you mean “account with no activity for an extended period of time that then becomes active”). The dispute is over whether that’s suspicious or unusual and whether there’s any correlation between “zombies” and sock-puppets. You have proven neither.
Re: You've objected to hosts regarded as "Neutral Public Forums"
I’m afraid there is no contradiction. Being an “open arena” doesn’t require being a “neutral public forum”. An “open arena” just means that any member of the public can contribute content or ideas. A “neutral public forum” would require that all ideas must be given equal weight and treatment by those running the site. Basically, while one could argue that all neutral public fora are open arenas, it’s simply not the case that all open arenas are neutral public fora.
You can complain about that being a semantic argument, and it technically is, but that a) doesn’t make it invalid and b) is really the only option when an apparent contradiction between two terms exists. Semantic arguments are a perfectly valid way to resolve apparent contradictions.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: YOU assert that those are PRIVATE corpor
You make it sound like this is the first day that AC Unknown has posted anything in 43 months, but they’ve posted on a number of other recent days, too, as well as on multiple articles.
At any rate, there’s nothing inexplicable or suspicious about long gaps of no comments on many websites. Not everyone who has an account feels the need to both a) go to this site all the time and b) write comments every time they visit the site. You have not explained why that’s so strange to begin with. It’s a small site, so you shouldn’t be expecting everyone to actively engage with the site with any sort of regularity.
Also, hiding comments isn’t censorship. We can still see them easily on this site, which means that they’re clearly not censored.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: YOU assert that those are PRIVATE corporate-
First, while the site is supportive of speech free from government control (i.e. free speech) and doesn’t actually remove posts outside of spam, that doesn’t mean that it has to allow all speech or make all speech equally visible. Also, where exactly is this site advertised as a “free speech site”?
Second, it is a private site in that it is privately owned. That is not the same as being private as in inaccessible to the general public. This is a privately-owned site that happens to be open to public viewing and public input. That still means it’s a private site.
Third, that Masnick allows public Input “through HTML code” (though I should note that how it’s done is completely irrelevant) is not tantamount to ceding all control. Some de facto control may be lost, but not all, and he still retains full de jure control of it outside of anything he gives up through a contract. Again, simply allowing public input does not mean giving up the right to moderate third-party content on the site.
Fourth, show us exactly what part of the site’s contract Masnick is supposedly breaching and how. Most sites do retain the right to remove content for any reason at their sole discretion, but Masnick has only removed commercial spam and blocked shady or repetitious comments (the latter through an automated filter), so that doesn’t even matter. As for hiding comments, that’s done by users, anyways, so that’s not Mike breaching the contract, either.
Re: Re: Re: YOU assert that those are PRIVATE corporate-controll
Actually, the law is that platforms have their own free speech rights which allow them to deny service to anyone. There’s a ton of case law supporting this. Furthermore, the right to free speech doesn’t guarantee that you can say whatever you want anywhere you want without consequences. They just can’t be consequences enforced by the government.
And even then, there’s contract law to deal with (you can waive some rights via contracts), like those ToS’s that you agree to to even be able to use these services.
You clearly do not want "platforms" to be NEUTRAL PUBLIC FORUMS.
Such a thing is fundamentally impossible, and none of the platforms (outside of places like 8kun) even pretend to be one. And no, I don’t have a problem with that, nor is there a law requiring them to be neutral public forums.
Also, as a reminder, there’s a massive difference between “public” as in “publicly owned” (i.e. owned by the government) and “public” as in “publicly accessible” or “open to the public”. The First Amendment only restricts the former from regulating speech; the latter is what Facebook, Twitter, etc. are: privately owned platforms open to the public, much like a privately owned billboard or a bar. Things can be publicly owned and publicly accessible (a public park), publicly owned but not publicly accessible (a military base), privately owned and publicly accessible (a restaurant or social media site), or privately owned but not publicly accessible (your house or a private factory). There’s no real correlation or connection between the two uses of the word “public”.
If you want Facebook or Twitter to be “public forums” such that the First Amendment prevents speech from being removed from them, you would first have to make them owned and run by the government. (That or maybe give them powers that are traditionally reserved for and exercised by the government exclusively. Running a forum that is open to the public is not one of those things.)
Then there’s the issues with “neutral”, which is impossible because bias is inevitable and unavoidable, plus it’s not always desirable. At any rate, while the government has to stay content-neutral regarding speech, social media sites are not the government, so there is no such restriction for them.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why the headline is false(RE
IF what you want to read is "evidence that conservatives are in fact on the ball about copyright abuse", then you won't find it. Happy?
Then that means you have no evidence that the headline is false because that’s what it’s referring to. In other words, you’re admitting the headline is true.
On the post: Why Don't Conservatives Care About Copyright?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why the headline is false(READ)
Dude, the person who posted the articles essentially admitted that they don’t actually disprove the actual headline. They admitted that they don’t prove that conservatives care one way or the other about copyright, which would be necessary to disprove the headline. They merely assert that liberals are corrupt regarding copyright (irrelevant) and that there isn’t enough evidence to prove that conservatives don’t care (which gets the burden of proof wrong).
Also, why is it so hard to believe that a person commenting on Techdirt read one of several given articles on Techdirt?
On the post: Why Don't Conservatives Care About Copyright?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why the headline is false(READ)
No, he’s not!
Yes, he is!
No, he’s not!
Do you see how ridiculous this is?
Also, it’s rather ridiculous to assume a commenter on Techdirt did not read any of the listed Techdirt articles without evidence to back up that assumption.
On the post: Why Don't Conservatives Care About Copyright?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why the headline is false(READ)
I can do this all day.
An argument isn’t just contradiction. An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition. Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of anything the other person says.
On the post: Why Don't Conservatives Care About Copyright?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why the headline is false(READ)
An argument isn’t just contradiction. An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition. Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of anything the other person says.
On the post: Why Don't Conservatives Care About Copyright?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why the headline is
You’re completely missing the point. The headline itself doesn’t even imply ties between conservatives and being in bed with the copyright/entertainment industry or any of that. That’s all irrelevant to what the headline actually says.
They weren’t pushing copyright reform, either, which is the main point, nor were they actively opposing copyright maximalist efforts. That does imply that the headline is true: taking no action at all and not speaking up on an issue tends to imply a lack of concern with that particular issue.
More to the point, you weren’t simply saying that the headline wasn’t adequately supported; you said the headline was actually false. As such, the burden of proof is on you to refute the headline by showing examples of conservatives caring about copyright rather than on us to show that conservatives don’t care. You’re making the positive claim here.
On the post: Why Don't Conservatives Care About Copyright?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why the head
Regardless, the headline itself only says “Why Don’t Conservatives Care About Copyright?”. In context, it’s clear that one should add “as much as they do §230” to that. You haven’t provided evidence that that is false, and with the addendum, you seem to think it’s true even if you believe there’s a good reason or that liberals are just as bad, neither of which are relevant to the question of whether the headline is, in fact, true or false.
Instead, it seems you take issue with other things unrelated to whether the headline itself is true or false, which is what the whole thing started with.
On the post: Bad Analogy: Comparing Social Media To Guns
Re: and that browser session died mysteriously...
Where in the code is there anything that could intentionally kill a specific user’s browser session?
On the post: Bad Analogy: Comparing Social Media To Guns
Re: now maybe the 5th...
When has he ever claimed to be an unbiased journalist?
On the post: Bad Analogy: Comparing Social Media To Guns
Re: 6th in this series...
Serious question: what do you suppose actually changed between your first and third? It probably wasn’t a switch simply because, well, why would they flip it back?
On the post: Bad Analogy: Comparing Social Media To Guns
Re: Re: A. Stephen Stone, can you ever be on-topic?
He said it was a “[s]hot in the dark, just for the hell of it”.
On the post: Bad Analogy: Comparing Social Media To Guns
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: SOCK PUPPET ATTACK!
That doesn’t make the point invalid. In fact, it suggests that what you call “all the sock-puppets” are not actually sock-puppets. After all, most of the points made are regarding the most reliable indicators for a sock-puppet account.
Real life worries, lack of time, temporary lack of interest, not having anything new to add… There are a number of perfectly reasonable explanations.
Also, regarding the “supporting Techdirt” part, I would surmise that 1) most (though certainly not all) people who sign up for a Techdirt account generally have similar opinions as Techdirt and 2) people who visit a site frequently despite disliking/disagreeing with most or all of its content are more likely to post comments and do so more frequently than those with a neutral or supportive stance regarding Techdirt’s content, followed by those who support Techdirt. (If you’re wondering how 2 can be reconciled with the fact that most comments tend to be supportive, a) people who dislike/disagree with most or all of the content on a site are far less likely to stick around than those who like/agree with it, and b) perhaps more people who learn about Techdirt to begin with tend to have similar views on the content on this site.)
No one’s disputing that (if by “zombie” you mean “account with no activity for an extended period of time that then becomes active”). The dispute is over whether that’s suspicious or unusual and whether there’s any correlation between “zombies” and sock-puppets. You have proven neither.
On the post: Bad Analogy: Comparing Social Media To Guns
Re: You've objected to hosts regarded as "Neutral Public Forums"
I’m afraid there is no contradiction. Being an “open arena” doesn’t require being a “neutral public forum”. An “open arena” just means that any member of the public can contribute content or ideas. A “neutral public forum” would require that all ideas must be given equal weight and treatment by those running the site. Basically, while one could argue that all neutral public fora are open arenas, it’s simply not the case that all open arenas are neutral public fora.
You can complain about that being a semantic argument, and it technically is, but that a) doesn’t make it invalid and b) is really the only option when an apparent contradiction between two terms exists. Semantic arguments are a perfectly valid way to resolve apparent contradictions.
On the post: Bad Analogy: Comparing Social Media To Guns
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: YOU assert that those are PRIVATE corpor
You make it sound like this is the first day that AC Unknown has posted anything in 43 months, but they’ve posted on a number of other recent days, too, as well as on multiple articles.
At any rate, there’s nothing inexplicable or suspicious about long gaps of no comments on many websites. Not everyone who has an account feels the need to both a) go to this site all the time and b) write comments every time they visit the site. You have not explained why that’s so strange to begin with. It’s a small site, so you shouldn’t be expecting everyone to actively engage with the site with any sort of regularity.
Also, hiding comments isn’t censorship. We can still see them easily on this site, which means that they’re clearly not censored.
On the post: Bad Analogy: Comparing Social Media To Guns
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: YOU assert that those are PRIVATE corporate-
First, while the site is supportive of speech free from government control (i.e. free speech) and doesn’t actually remove posts outside of spam, that doesn’t mean that it has to allow all speech or make all speech equally visible. Also, where exactly is this site advertised as a “free speech site”?
Second, it is a private site in that it is privately owned. That is not the same as being private as in inaccessible to the general public. This is a privately-owned site that happens to be open to public viewing and public input. That still means it’s a private site.
Third, that Masnick allows public Input “through HTML code” (though I should note that how it’s done is completely irrelevant) is not tantamount to ceding all control. Some de facto control may be lost, but not all, and he still retains full de jure control of it outside of anything he gives up through a contract. Again, simply allowing public input does not mean giving up the right to moderate third-party content on the site.
Fourth, show us exactly what part of the site’s contract Masnick is supposedly breaching and how. Most sites do retain the right to remove content for any reason at their sole discretion, but Masnick has only removed commercial spam and blocked shady or repetitious comments (the latter through an automated filter), so that doesn’t even matter. As for hiding comments, that’s done by users, anyways, so that’s not Mike breaching the contract, either.
On the post: Bad Analogy: Comparing Social Media To Guns
Re: Re: Re: YOU assert that those are PRIVATE corporate-controll
Actually, the law is that platforms have their own free speech rights which allow them to deny service to anyone. There’s a ton of case law supporting this. Furthermore, the right to free speech doesn’t guarantee that you can say whatever you want anywhere you want without consequences. They just can’t be consequences enforced by the government.
And even then, there’s contract law to deal with (you can waive some rights via contracts), like those ToS’s that you agree to to even be able to use these services.
Such a thing is fundamentally impossible, and none of the platforms (outside of places like 8kun) even pretend to be one. And no, I don’t have a problem with that, nor is there a law requiring them to be neutral public forums.
Also, as a reminder, there’s a massive difference between “public” as in “publicly owned” (i.e. owned by the government) and “public” as in “publicly accessible” or “open to the public”. The First Amendment only restricts the former from regulating speech; the latter is what Facebook, Twitter, etc. are: privately owned platforms open to the public, much like a privately owned billboard or a bar. Things can be publicly owned and publicly accessible (a public park), publicly owned but not publicly accessible (a military base), privately owned and publicly accessible (a restaurant or social media site), or privately owned but not publicly accessible (your house or a private factory). There’s no real correlation or connection between the two uses of the word “public”.
If you want Facebook or Twitter to be “public forums” such that the First Amendment prevents speech from being removed from them, you would first have to make them owned and run by the government. (That or maybe give them powers that are traditionally reserved for and exercised by the government exclusively. Running a forum that is open to the public is not one of those things.)
Then there’s the issues with “neutral”, which is impossible because bias is inevitable and unavoidable, plus it’s not always desirable. At any rate, while the government has to stay content-neutral regarding speech, social media sites are not the government, so there is no such restriction for them.
On the post: Bad Analogy: Comparing Social Media To Guns
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: YOU assert that those are PRIVATE corporate-
They can choose to click to reveal any hidden comments if they want to. Nothing is stopping them from doing so.
Do you have evidence of that? Also, why would they be driven off? By having to click to see “opposition”? What’s the big deal?
As evidenced by your whining and complaining about it at every opportunity.
On the post: Bad Analogy: Comparing Social Media To Guns
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: YOU assert that those are PRIVATE corporate-
Disadvantage =/= censorship
We can still read your comments.
On the post: White House Offers To Allow Renaming Confederate Bases... In Exchange For Getting Rid Of Section 230
Re: Dorsey has recently stated that Twitter is NOT a publisher,
In addition to what Stephen Stone said, §230 also explicitly protects users from liability for what other users post.
On the post: Government Argues In Court That It Can Kill US Citizens At Will With Zero Judicial Oversight
This just goes to show even where Obama was lacking as President, Trump is at best no better than Obama, and far worse at worst.
On the post: Why Don't Conservatives Care About Copyright?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why the headline is false(RE
Then that means you have no evidence that the headline is false because that’s what it’s referring to. In other words, you’re admitting the headline is true.
Next >>