And on that note, poster Kesh on Ars had an insightful comment I'll copy here:
There is no "marketplace of ideas." The very concept is without merit. Ideas aren't commodities to be traded, they don't expire or need replaced, they have no "value" in the capitalist sense. It's just a nonsensical attempt to smooth over the "You won't listen to my bigoted views" point without coming out & saying it.
Ideas aren't always up for debate. Putting them into the framework of a "marketplace," where they succeed or fail based on their "value," inherently puts up the entire concept of human dignity & right to life as just another commodity that can be "devalued" until genocide is justified.
The marketplace of ideas is just another form of rhetoric to excuse dehumanizing others.
Translation: Koby wants to censor the billions of users he disagrees with, because the dozens he agrees with can't compete in the free marketplace of ideas that his own definitions admits exists.
Since I didn't notice a direct link in the article, here's the earlier article covering how parts of this fraud was committed by Trump campaign groups and Libertarian-flavored corporate fronts (though I repeat myself):
If the crime victim and her family were all waiting outside while the vandalism was taking place, can it really be said that there were any human beings inside the residence at all?
On the post: Wired's Big 230 Piece Has A Narrative To Tell
Re:
And on that note, poster Kesh on Ars had an insightful comment I'll copy here:
On the post: Wired's Big 230 Piece Has A Narrative To Tell
Re:
Yeah, I wrote "compete" when I meant "succeed."
On the post: Thanks To Section 230, I Can Correct Wired's Portrayal Of My Section 230 Advocacy
Re: Re: Argument not over views favorable to GOOGLE, Facebook, T
... that doesn't exist in the real world.
On the post: Thanks To Section 230, I Can Correct Wired's Portrayal Of My Section 230 Advocacy
Re: Re: Argument not over views favorable to GOOGLE, Facebook, T
The only "legal fictions" here are the ones you're writing, brainless smurf.
On the post: Thanks To Section 230, I Can Correct Wired's Portrayal Of My Section 230 Advocacy
Re: innocuous leader
[Hallucinates facts not in evidence]
On the post: Thanks To Section 230, I Can Correct Wired's Portrayal Of My Section 230 Advocacy
Re: Re: I have One Simple Question for you.
[Projects facts not in evidence]
On the post: Wired's Big 230 Piece Has A Narrative To Tell
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Feature, Not A Bug
Translation: Koby wants to censor the billions of users he disagrees with, because the dozens he agrees with can't compete in the free marketplace of ideas that his own definitions admits exists.
On the post: Big Telecom Sues New York State For Trying To Bring Cheap Broadband To Poor People
Re: Re: Re: competition
Unsurprisingly, the real world definitions disagree with your Libertarian-flavored kool-aid narrative:
https://www.economicshelp.org/blog/glossary/natural-monopoly/
https://www.economicsonline .co.uk/Business_economics/Natural_monopolies.html
https://stats.oecd.org/glossary/detail.asp?ID=3267
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_monopoly
On the post: Thanks To Section 230, I Can Correct Wired's Portrayal Of My Section 230 Advocacy
Re: O RLY?
[Asserts facts not in evidence]
On the post: Wired's Big 230 Piece Has A Narrative To Tell
Re: Re: Feature, Not A Bug
Every Section 230 thread, Koby comes in to demand censorship of free speech because he politically doesn't like its content.
On the post: Wired's Big 230 Piece Has A Narrative To Tell
Re: Feature, Not A Bug
[Projects facts not in evidence]
On the post: Wired's Big 230 Piece Has A Narrative To Tell
Just the same as with Net Neutrality, there has never once been a claim that Section 230 is a bad thing that didn't lie about what it is and does.
On the post: The Oversight Board's Decision On Facebook's Trump Ban Is Just Not That Important
Re: Nonchalant
Nor for our lack of trying to fix you and the crazed lunatic worlds your censorious little totalitarian mind cooks up from whole cloth.
On the post: Big Telecom Sues New York State For Trying To Bring Cheap Broadband To Poor People
Re: competition
AC's false analogy ignores that physical goods have production costs that bits don't.
On the post: Big Telecom Sues New York State For Trying To Bring Cheap Broadband To Poor People
New York:
"YOU WILL MAKE A PROFIT AND YOU WILL LIKE IT!"
ISPs: "But it's not enough profit, so we don't want it, waah!"
On the post: Why Is A Congressional Staffer Teaming Up With A Hollywood Lobbyist To Celebrate Expansion Of Criminal Copyright Laws?
To answer the headline's question:
Corruption.
On the post: NY AG Proves Broadband Industry Funded Phony Public Support For Attack On Net Neutrality
Since I didn't notice a direct link in the article, here's the earlier article covering how parts of this fraud was committed by Trump campaign groups and Libertarian-flavored corporate fronts (though I repeat myself):
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20190201/07553041507/bogus-net-neutrality-comments-linked -to-trumpland.shtml
On the post: Former FCC Boss Ajit Pai Gets Handsomely Rewarded For Years Of Broadband Policy Falsehoods
AEI: an employer of professional liar and occasional Techdirt troll Dick Bennett.
On the post: The Oversight Board's Decision On Facebook's Trump Ban Is Just Not That Important
Re:
Not just an audience - their audience, not his.
On the post: Lawsuit: Cops Trashed An Attorney's Home In Retaliation For Successfully Defending A Suspect Against Murder Charges
If the crime victim and her family were all waiting outside while the vandalism was taking place, can it really be said that there were any human beings inside the residence at all?
Next >>