Re: Re: Re: Do you even know what day it is old man?
Poor debate tactic of yours.
But we aren't debating you, we're pointing out that you are wrong. And repeating the same falsehoods still not going to make you right.
Posting 30 times every article that "230 enables defamation" isn't going to make it true. 230 enables speech, which may contain falsehoods and unpleasant facts...
Techdirt hosting "articles" from literal industry shills.
Shapiro is an author, businessman and an innovator. Your unfounded opinion is duly noted. Please present your credentials so that we can see who you work for.
Your rebuttal does not address how you expect user-generated content to exist without 230. A website would be liable for content that went up even if it was taken down later.
As Shapiro points out that would mean holding and pre-screening all content for liability issues.
You have pointed out what you see are pitfalls of free speech, and your solution is to broaden liability at the expense of discourse.
I have used many other programs, Gimp has always seemed alien and oddly laid out. Layers, and poorer integration with my Wacom were also factors that made it more difficult to use.
It's been a while since I needed to do any serious editing. Gimp may have improved.
Oh, also, it's not censorship, because that's only the government restricting free speech.
Also, copyright Is Government Censorship, how do you not understand that preventing you from copying or publishing a document under force of law is not a government action?
Once again, your links don't prove what you say they do.
If I say "All self-help authors are scammers" then I guess every self help author in the world has cause to sue me? (Hint - they don't, still not how defamation works.)
Besides - I didn't call you or your business a scam. I was addressing that other poster who brags about his self-help books and lies about caselaw, then threatens folks with lawsuits. I'm pretty sure he's a scam artist. A bad one, seeing how his self-help business couldn't help himself.
You on the other hand are obviously a different anonymous coward hiding behind your monitor.
On the other hand software is constantly being updated and patched. My old copy of Adobe CS2 won't run on my new machine. Should Adobe give me a free patch to get it going again?
I'm not a big fan of Software as a Service. But what's worse is software I've actually purchased that just stops working for some reason and the vendor just smiles and shows me an invoice for the latest release. (Yeah, I'm looking at YOU PowerDVD.)
Having been a long time Photoshop user, any time I had to work with Gimp was a significant drag. It's gotten better but the last time I had to use it it was still like pulling teeth. I'm not hating on Linux or free software on principle.
I know many people who in the start years think 1990's who registered many addresses to become address brokers but who had their addresses stolen off them because.
You mean domain speculators who snapped up company names? Because trademark law. The domain names were transferred over to trademark holders under court order. (aka "Not stolen.")
Why should some scammer get to pay $9.99 for usairlines.com and then be able to hold it for ransom? Domain scammers weren't doing work, they were just snapping up names cheap so they could sell them back at exorbanate prices.
Back to that "Weepable" commentary?
TD has (correctly) quoted caselaw (COMMON LAW) to show that the people that run corporations don't have less rights that other people.
Your "Cabbage Law" has no basis in, you know, actual laws.
And your "We" obviously doesn't include anyone that disagrees with you.
And Blue has been making his typical hit and run posts as normal, crying that the top posters (by volume, and votes) are shills. Shilling for... Common sense and free speech?
Ah yes, Masnick is presenting an OPINION as if it were a FACT, all to carry out his pro-230 agenda.
Actually TD has presented actual caselaw. Some scammer (perhaps an author of self-help books) keeps presenting his opinions as fact. Don't confuse them.
As I've already pointed out, the flaw in 230 is that someone can use a "burner IP" to destroy someone's reputation with lies.
Your cries of burner IP's have no basis in law, or tech. Speech is speech, and protected in the states. Your idea that fake accounts can't be held accountable means that google or review websites have no way of determining the validity. You make the fine point that it's impossible to filter comments - congrats.
Of course I'm not endorsing anyone ever doing this to someone, as it's a horrible experience, but the potential for abuse should not be ignored simply because someone has never been on its receiving end.
I think TD keeps the AC accounts live for that very reason - so we can see what the trolls and scammers have to say.
It should also be noted that Google was sued in Australia over its search results
Do you live in Australia? Have you been harmed by online reviews? google gets sued all the time - they have money. Unlike failed self-help authors.
Once again, say it without lying - "Section 230 has been upheld in hundreds of court cases."
You seem to want to spread the falsehood that any law that hasn't gone to the supreme court is somehow invalid. Which is what a scammer who bilks people with worthless self-help books would say.
On the post: Section 230 Keeps The Internet Open For Innovation
Re:
Female victims of revenge porn have not been so lucky
Once again your scare tactic is senseless. Revenge porn site operators have been arrested. Your point is moot.
But next it's burner IP's and mailing lists, right?
On the post: Section 230 Keeps The Internet Open For Innovation
Re: Re: Re: Do you even know what day it is old man?
Poor debate tactic of yours.
But we aren't debating you, we're pointing out that you are wrong. And repeating the same falsehoods still not going to make you right.
Posting 30 times every article that "230 enables defamation" isn't going to make it true. 230 enables speech, which may contain falsehoods and unpleasant facts...
On the post: Section 230 Keeps The Internet Open For Innovation
Re:
Techdirt hosting "articles" from literal industry shills.
Shapiro is an author, businessman and an innovator. Your unfounded opinion is duly noted. Please present your credentials so that we can see who you work for.
On the post: Section 230 Keeps The Internet Open For Innovation
Re:
Section 230 is fatally flawed.
Your rebuttal does not address how you expect user-generated content to exist without 230. A website would be liable for content that went up even if it was taken down later.
As Shapiro points out that would mean holding and pre-screening all content for liability issues.
You have pointed out what you see are pitfalls of free speech, and your solution is to broaden liability at the expense of discourse.
On the post: Adobe Warns Users Someone Else Might Sue Them For Using Old Versions Of Photoshop
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Yet another reason...
I have used many other programs, Gimp has always seemed alien and oddly laid out. Layers, and poorer integration with my Wacom were also factors that made it more difficult to use.
It's been a while since I needed to do any serious editing. Gimp may have improved.
On the post: Copyright As Censorship: American Law Institute Uses Copyright To Stop Discussion Of Controversial Publication Prior To Vote
Re: Re: Re:
Are you a lawyer?
I'm not giving detailed legal analysis that requires a law degree.
Obviously then you'd understand that you don't need to be a lawyer to give this sort of commentary.
On the post: Copyright As Censorship: American Law Institute Uses Copyright To Stop Discussion Of Controversial Publication Prior To Vote
Re: Private organizations
Oh, also, it's not censorship, because that's only the government restricting free speech.
Also, copyright Is Government Censorship, how do you not understand that preventing you from copying or publishing a document under force of law is not a government action?
On the post: Copyright As Censorship: American Law Institute Uses Copyright To Stop Discussion Of Controversial Publication Prior To Vote
Re: Private organizations
Well, they are a private organization, so they can do what they want with their material.
Right? RIGHT?
You seem to have hilariously conflated copyright with FB's right to not publish.
FB can kick you off FB for being as ass.
FB can not stop you from publishing materials, documents or going other locations to discuss FB.
On the post: Miami Plastic Surgeon Sues Two Patients For Negative Reviews After He Had Them Sign Illegal Non Disparagement Agreements
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
_Scammer is the one I take issue with the most.
You might want to learn just a wee bit about the caselaw on whether or not it's defamation to call someone a scammer. You can start here:
https://scholar.google.com.vn/scholar_case?case=6697525320456140015&q=mccabe+v+rattiner&am p;am p;hl=en&assdt=2006
Once again, your links don't prove what you say they do.
If I say "All self-help authors are scammers" then I guess every self help author in the world has cause to sue me? (Hint - they don't, still not how defamation works.)
Besides - I didn't call you or your business a scam. I was addressing that other poster who brags about his self-help books and lies about caselaw, then threatens folks with lawsuits. I'm pretty sure he's a scam artist. A bad one, seeing how his self-help business couldn't help himself.
You on the other hand are obviously a different anonymous coward hiding behind your monitor.
On the post: Adobe Warns Users Someone Else Might Sue Them For Using Old Versions Of Photoshop
Re: I warned ye! Did nay I warn ye?
On the other hand software is constantly being updated and patched. My old copy of Adobe CS2 won't run on my new machine. Should Adobe give me a free patch to get it going again?
I'm not a big fan of Software as a Service. But what's worse is software I've actually purchased that just stops working for some reason and the vendor just smiles and shows me an invoice for the latest release. (Yeah, I'm looking at YOU PowerDVD.)
On the post: Adobe Warns Users Someone Else Might Sue Them For Using Old Versions Of Photoshop
Re: Re: Re: Re: Yet another reason...
I will do that, and I appreciate the suggestion.
Having been a long time Photoshop user, any time I had to work with Gimp was a significant drag. It's gotten better but the last time I had to use it it was still like pulling teeth. I'm not hating on Linux or free software on principle.
On the post: Chicago Cubs Successfully Oppose Iowa Man's 'Cubnoxious' Trademark; Court Cites Obnoxious Cubs Fans
Re: reinvented intelligent design
I know many people who in the start years think 1990's who registered many addresses to become address brokers but who had their addresses stolen off them because.
You mean domain speculators who snapped up company names? Because trademark law. The domain names were transferred over to trademark holders under court order. (aka "Not stolen.")
Why should some scammer get to pay $9.99 for usairlines.com and then be able to hold it for ransom? Domain scammers weren't doing work, they were just snapping up names cheap so they could sell them back at exorbanate prices.
On the post: Adobe Warns Users Someone Else Might Sue Them For Using Old Versions Of Photoshop
Re: Re: Yet another reason...
GIMP still sux, sorry.
On the post: Vox Admits It Got Section 230 Wrong, Fixes Its Mistake
Re: If "not an accurate TROLL"
Blue Balls -
Back to that "Weepable" commentary?
TD has (correctly) quoted caselaw (COMMON LAW) to show that the people that run corporations don't have less rights that other people.
Your "Cabbage Law" has no basis in, you know, actual laws.
And your "We" obviously doesn't include anyone that disagrees with you.
On the post: Vox Admits It Got Section 230 Wrong, Fixes Its Mistake
Re: Re: FRESH TROLL
Hey Blue Balls -
You claim to value free speech and that TD hates it. Please show us how you have promoted free speech by hosting a website that upholds your values.
Please show us your "Cabbage Law" which can not be written down.
Thanks!
On the post: Vox Admits It Got Section 230 Wrong, Fixes Its Mistake
Re: Re: You're writing at astro-Trolling
And Blue has been making his typical hit and run posts as normal, crying that the top posters (by volume, and votes) are shills. Shilling for... Common sense and free speech?
On the post: Vox Admits It Got Section 230 Wrong, Fixes Its Mistake
Re: Re:
Dammit all. Who hit the first word. Now I'm staring at those typos.
On the post: Chicago Cubs Successfully Oppose Iowa Man's 'Cubnoxious' Trademark; Court Cites Obnoxious Cubs Fans
Less Trademarks > More Trademarks.
On the post: Vox Admits It Got Section 230 Wrong, Fixes Its Mistake
Re:
Ok, I'll break it down doe the slow:
Ah yes, Masnick is presenting an OPINION as if it were a FACT, all to carry out his pro-230 agenda.
Actually TD has presented actual caselaw. Some scammer (perhaps an author of self-help books) keeps presenting his opinions as fact. Don't confuse them.
As I've already pointed out, the flaw in 230 is that someone can use a "burner IP" to destroy someone's reputation with lies.
Your cries of burner IP's have no basis in law, or tech. Speech is speech, and protected in the states. Your idea that fake accounts can't be held accountable means that google or review websites have no way of determining the validity. You make the fine point that it's impossible to filter comments - congrats.
Of course I'm not endorsing anyone ever doing this to someone, as it's a horrible experience, but the potential for abuse should not be ignored simply because someone has never been on its receiving end.
I think TD keeps the AC accounts live for that very reason - so we can see what the trolls and scammers have to say.
It should also be noted that Google was sued in Australia over its search results
Do you live in Australia? Have you been harmed by online reviews? google gets sued all the time - they have money. Unlike failed self-help authors.
On the post: Vox Admits It Got Section 230 Wrong, Fixes Its Mistake
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Courts who have upheld 230
Once again, say it without lying - "Section 230 has been upheld in hundreds of court cases."
You seem to want to spread the falsehood that any law that hasn't gone to the supreme court is somehow invalid. Which is what a scammer who bilks people with worthless self-help books would say.
Next >>