The court ignores that the man will likely have lost business now that Twitter, a god in the eyes of many stupid social shites, has declared him a hacker.
Show me where Twitter clearly, definitively, and unequivocally referred to John Paul Mac Isaac as a “hacker”. I’ll wait.
Would you trust your computer there?
No, because I don’t know if he’s going to fucking turn over my shit to a fucking political operative for the sake of attention and (most likely) money.
If it wasn’t hunter Biden or any other piece of crap politician, celebrity etc, it was James I Drink Beer Jones’s laptop info…
…we probably wouldn’t be having this conversation because nobody would give a fuck about John Q. Rando’s laptop contents being given to the Post except John. The only reason we’re talking about this case is because of who the laptop and its contents are alleged to have belonged to before Isaac handed it over to Rudy “Four Seasons Total Landscaping” Giuliani.
Link please, and I shall.
There’s a link in the article. If you can’t find it, that’s your problem.
Assuming, and I DO, the story was accurate
Bold of you to assume the story is 100% accurate without any credible proof to back up anything about the story, but you do you, son. I still have questions about it.
I would have posted it to every site that would host it. Full, complete, and unredacted.
One of those questions I have runs along those lines: Why were the emails alleged to have been found on the laptop presented in a way that didn’t show off the metadata that could help prove the emails were legit?
Twitter declared the info “hacked”. The information was not. In doing so, the declaration, I would think it’s directly damaging to his business.
Except Twitter didn’t say John Paul Mac Isaac was a “hacker”. It said the article contained “hacked materials” (which is a different issue altogether), but it didn’t say who was responsible for the “hacking”. Twitter never mentioned John Paul Mac Isaac or his business by name in any of its posts about this issue. Hell, if anyone is to blame for any direct connection to Isaac and the “hacking” descriptor, it’s the Post—not for publishing his name in the original article (it didn’t), but for publishing a photo of his business in said article that people could use to figure out who he was.
I believe he went looking for his moment of fame.
What does that say about his credibility, especially in light of the many “I still have questions about this”–level discrepancies in re: the Post story?
I was against his lawsuit the first time initially
And you should still be against it now. Twitter has a 1A-protected right to moderate speech on its platform. Twitter didn’t defame John Paul Mac Isaac even by implication. The lawsuit was a SLAPP and the courts ruled it was one. Until you point out a flaw in the reasoning of the ruling in this case, I’m not going to give any merit to your disagreement with that ruling. Neither should anyone else.
It actually is. Your problem? Your technology isn’t awesome.
You also need to get idiots to use your software.
Yes, yes, you think all the other seven billion–plus people in the world are intellectually disabled and you’re the only sane and smart person alive. We get it.
Also what does it say about you that you can’t even get “idiots” (which I’m sure isn’t the word you really wanted to put there) to use your software?
you need to maintain a community which will bleed your life force when their feature requests are horrible stuff that ruins the whole technology
Or they’ll move on to software that adds those features when you refuse to do so. Your inability to build software that people will want to use isn’t the problem of people who want to use software that does what they need it to do (or can be modified to do what they need it to do) instead of only what you want them to do with it and nothing more.
Then the press and blogs will bash it to the ground.
Awww, is the widdle bitch afwaid of criticism?
And then it'll be forgotten and copyright preservation folks are the only one that still remembers how the technology worked.
Which means the tech is irrelevant to anything being done by actual real-world users instead of the dicksucking slaves you envision your users to be in your head. If your software is irrelevant now, why would anyone ever care about it as anything but an atrocity tourism rest stop ten years from now?
twitter removed the article for “hacked materials”
No, it didn’t. It removed a link to the article. The article was still on the Post website—where, I might add, it still exists.
the materials weren’t hacked
And as noted in the article, Techdirt has criticized Twitter’s reasoning for the moderation of that link.
The abandoned property’s ownership converts to the possessor after a set amount of time, varying by state.
Assuming the property in question was legitimately abandoned by its alleged owner, that is. No one, including the computer tech at the heart of this story, has offered conclusive evidence that the laptop actually belonged to Hunter Biden. (“No one” includes you, too.)
I don’t understand how this was a suit about “public participation”.
It was an attempt to silence speech from Twitter—in this case, its moderation decisions concerning the link to that article and its reasoning for that moderation—that is 100% protected by the First Amendment. That turns the computer tech’s suit into a lawsuit designed to limit what you might call “public-facing” speech/expression from Twitter…or, to put it another way, a strategic lawsuit against public participation.
Twitter indirectly accused the man of supplying “hacked materials”
And the court said “that isn’t defamation”. Your opinion or the court’s ruling—which one do you think matters more?
Politics aside, it’s not hard to see such a connotation hurting a computer repair man.
Consider that said computer repairman gave the laptop of one of his alleged clients to a political operative for the sake of smearing said (alleged) client. That fact will probably do more damage than Twitter saying “a news article contained hacked materials” without actually saying the repairman was the one who “hacked” the computer.
I still think the first case has merit.
The court disagreed. But by all means, read the actual ruling itself, then point out the flaws in the logic of said ruling.
Well, yeah, that’s been basically the whole point of anti-abortion laws since Roe v. Wade: They’re about either passing a law controversial enough to reach SCOTUS (and let them outlaw abortion for good) or passing a TRAP law that will stay on the books so abortion is still technically legal but that much harder to access.
Given the political makeup of the Supreme Court at the moment, I can’t imagine anyone wanting to bring a case about this law before SCOTUS and risking the full overturning of Roe v. Wade. I mean, would you want to be forever known as the people/company responsible for putting the United States on the path to becoming Gilead?
Reading this makes me sad that you don't push for public utility of all social media.
Social media isn’t a utility. No one—including you, you pathetic hit-and-run troll—has offered a rational reason why a social media service should be considered a utility.
You just keep on with that right-wing talking point that "it's a private company" nonsense.
That isn’t a right-wing talking point, though. American conservatives are trying to turn social media into a utility from which conservative opinions can’t be “censored”…even if they can’t articulate exactly which specific “conservative opinions” are being “censored”.
And then put down anyone that tries to seek remedy for the totalitarian anti-American discrimination, censorship and smearing that goes on routinely.
If someone wants to sue for defamation over something said on social media, they should sue the party responsible for the allegedly defamatory speech: the person who posted it.
Also, if you could please point to specific examples of (proven) illegal discrimination, (actual rights-infringing) censorship, and (first-party) “smearing” on social media, that would be great.
The laptop was "apparently" Hunter's? Are you high?
I haven’t seen any independently verifiable evidence that proves the laptop belonged to Hunter Biden. I do, however, have a long list of questions about that story that need some answering…if you have such answers to give, that is.
not a word about the suppression of it all before the election by your BFFs the social media totalitarians
The article literally mentions how Twitter did the stupid thing of banning links to the article on Twitter. You fail to mention that Twitter didn’t…
ban links to the article on Facebook or any other interactive web service
ban the New York Post from Twitter for linking to the article in the first place
ban anyone from discussing the contents of the article in general
get the original article deleted from the website that was (and still is) hosting it
censor anyone because it is literally impossible for Twitter to censor anyone
So what “suppression” are you talking about, again?
they coming for you next
I don’t use Facebook or Twitter. How the fuck can they come for me if I’m not using their services?
Before any of the usual trolls even fucking says it, I’ll ask the question: How did Twitter “censor” Isaac? Remember that moderation isn’t censorship, no matter how much you want to believe it is.
Only women should decide about the abortion issue.
Only one woman should decide about the abortion issue: a woman who is pregnant. And she should be deciding only for herself. No one should have the right to make a woman give birth—or have an abortion—against her will.
Virtual porn that is rendered using programs like Source Filmmaker and Blender—both of which will always be more powerful, more user-friendly, and far more successful and well-known than your shit-ass software could ever be—will never replace actual porn. The copyright issue has no relevance to how virtual porn will always seem “off” enough to never be mistaken for the real thing.
Even the most lovingly rendered and detailed virtual porn will never—never—be mistaken for the real deal. And while there may be a certain thrill in seeing characters such as Tifa Lockhart and Aerith Gainsborough getting plowed to (and in) Seventh Heaven, even someone using the best possible models available for those characters will never be able to make them look like real people fucking other real people in a real place.
Oh, and FYI: People already have programs for viewing virtual porn. We call them “video players”. Try using one of those instead of designing software to play a video file in a web browser; I hear MPC-HC recently got an update.
In both cases the companies are reverse engineering to make devices to take away the other companies existing business.
Kytch’s device would only feasibly “take away” part of Taylor’s business (the servicing of Taylor machines). Even then, Taylor could make up for that by, y’know, actually selling its customers a device that would let them properly service Taylor machines. Kytch can’t put Taylor out of business even if it tried to do that.
Taylor, however, is flat-out trying to put Kytch out of business for doing something Taylor wouldn’t: selling Taylor customers a device that would let them properly service Taylor machines. Taylor could legitimately destroy Kytch—we’re talking “scorched earth, nothing lives, nobody tries to rebuild there for a century” levels of annihilation—if the courts find in its favor.
On the flip side: What are you doing to help women who are essentially forced to give birth because abortions are either outlawed (in letter or in spirit) or incredibly costly (in both time and money) to access? How are you helping them handle the sudden change in an economic situation that a child brings with them?
Techdirt here would have been censored for several months
By who? Because Techdirt authors being moderated off a privately owned interactive web service not owned or operated by Techdirt/Mike Masnick/those authors isn’t censorship.
COPYPASTA TIME! [ahem]
The First Amendment protects your rights to speak freely and associate with whomever you want. It doesn’t give you the right to make others listen. It doesn’t give you the right to make others give you access to an audience. And it doesn’t give you the right to make a personal soapbox out of private property you don’t own. Nobody is entitled to a platform or an audience at the expense of someone else.
Yes or no, anonymous coward: Do you believe the law should force all women to give birth once they know they’re pregnant—regardless of the circumstances of conception/the possible danger to the life of the woman?
On the post: Computer Repair Shop Owner Has To Pay Twitter's Legal Fees Over Bogus SLAPP Suit Regarding Hunter Biden's Laptop
Then say what you mean.
Show me where Twitter clearly, definitively, and unequivocally referred to John Paul Mac Isaac as a “hacker”. I’ll wait.
No, because I don’t know if he’s going to fucking turn over my shit to a fucking political operative for the sake of attention and (most likely) money.
…we probably wouldn’t be having this conversation because nobody would give a fuck about John Q. Rando’s laptop contents being given to the Post except John. The only reason we’re talking about this case is because of who the laptop and its contents are alleged to have belonged to before Isaac handed it over to Rudy “Four Seasons Total Landscaping” Giuliani.
There’s a link in the article. If you can’t find it, that’s your problem.
Bold of you to assume the story is 100% accurate without any credible proof to back up anything about the story, but you do you, son. I still have questions about it.
One of those questions I have runs along those lines: Why were the emails alleged to have been found on the laptop presented in a way that didn’t show off the metadata that could help prove the emails were legit?
Except Twitter didn’t say John Paul Mac Isaac was a “hacker”. It said the article contained “hacked materials” (which is a different issue altogether), but it didn’t say who was responsible for the “hacking”. Twitter never mentioned John Paul Mac Isaac or his business by name in any of its posts about this issue. Hell, if anyone is to blame for any direct connection to Isaac and the “hacking” descriptor, it’s the Post—not for publishing his name in the original article (it didn’t), but for publishing a photo of his business in said article that people could use to figure out who he was.
What does that say about his credibility, especially in light of the many “I still have questions about this”–level discrepancies in re: the Post story?
And you should still be against it now. Twitter has a 1A-protected right to moderate speech on its platform. Twitter didn’t defame John Paul Mac Isaac even by implication. The lawsuit was a SLAPP and the courts ruled it was one. Until you point out a flaw in the reasoning of the ruling in this case, I’m not going to give any merit to your disagreement with that ruling. Neither should anyone else.
On the post: Backpage Founders Trial Finally Begins
It actually is. Your problem? Your technology isn’t awesome.
Yes, yes, you think all the other seven billion–plus people in the world are intellectually disabled and you’re the only sane and smart person alive. We get it.
Also what does it say about you that you can’t even get “idiots” (which I’m sure isn’t the word you really wanted to put there) to use your software?
Or they’ll move on to software that adds those features when you refuse to do so. Your inability to build software that people will want to use isn’t the problem of people who want to use software that does what they need it to do (or can be modified to do what they need it to do) instead of only what you want them to do with it and nothing more.
Awww, is the widdle bitch afwaid of criticism?
Which means the tech is irrelevant to anything being done by actual real-world users instead of the dicksucking slaves you envision your users to be in your head. If your software is irrelevant now, why would anyone ever care about it as anything but an atrocity tourism rest stop ten years from now?
On the post: Computer Repair Shop Owner Has To Pay Twitter's Legal Fees Over Bogus SLAPP Suit Regarding Hunter Biden's Laptop
No, it didn’t. It removed a link to the article. The article was still on the Post website—where, I might add, it still exists.
And as noted in the article, Techdirt has criticized Twitter’s reasoning for the moderation of that link.
Assuming the property in question was legitimately abandoned by its alleged owner, that is. No one, including the computer tech at the heart of this story, has offered conclusive evidence that the laptop actually belonged to Hunter Biden. (“No one” includes you, too.)
It was an attempt to silence speech from Twitter—in this case, its moderation decisions concerning the link to that article and its reasoning for that moderation—that is 100% protected by the First Amendment. That turns the computer tech’s suit into a lawsuit designed to limit what you might call “public-facing” speech/expression from Twitter…or, to put it another way, a strategic lawsuit against public participation.
And the court said “that isn’t defamation”. Your opinion or the court’s ruling—which one do you think matters more?
Consider that said computer repairman gave the laptop of one of his alleged clients to a political operative for the sake of smearing said (alleged) client. That fact will probably do more damage than Twitter saying “a news article contained hacked materials” without actually saying the repairman was the one who “hacked” the computer.
The court disagreed. But by all means, read the actual ruling itself, then point out the flaws in the logic of said ruling.
I’ll wait.
On the post: New Texas Abortion Law Likely To Unleash A Torrent Of Lawsuits Against Online Education, Advocacy And Other Speech
Well, yeah, that’s been basically the whole point of anti-abortion laws since Roe v. Wade: They’re about either passing a law controversial enough to reach SCOTUS (and let them outlaw abortion for good) or passing a TRAP law that will stay on the books so abortion is still technically legal but that much harder to access.
On the post: New Texas Abortion Law Likely To Unleash A Torrent Of Lawsuits Against Online Education, Advocacy And Other Speech
Given the political makeup of the Supreme Court at the moment, I can’t imagine anyone wanting to bring a case about this law before SCOTUS and risking the full overturning of Roe v. Wade. I mean, would you want to be forever known as the people/company responsible for putting the United States on the path to becoming Gilead?
On the post: Computer Repair Shop Owner Has To Pay Twitter's Legal Fees Over Bogus SLAPP Suit Regarding Hunter Biden's Laptop
Social media isn’t a utility. No one—including you, you pathetic hit-and-run troll—has offered a rational reason why a social media service should be considered a utility.
That isn’t a right-wing talking point, though. American conservatives are trying to turn social media into a utility from which conservative opinions can’t be “censored”…even if they can’t articulate exactly which specific “conservative opinions” are being “censored”.
If someone wants to sue for defamation over something said on social media, they should sue the party responsible for the allegedly defamatory speech: the person who posted it.
Also, if you could please point to specific examples of (proven) illegal discrimination, (actual rights-infringing) censorship, and (first-party) “smearing” on social media, that would be great.
I haven’t seen any independently verifiable evidence that proves the laptop belonged to Hunter Biden. I do, however, have a long list of questions about that story that need some answering…if you have such answers to give, that is.
The article literally mentions how Twitter did the stupid thing of banning links to the article on Twitter. You fail to mention that Twitter didn’t…
ban links to the article on Facebook or any other interactive web service
ban the New York Post from Twitter for linking to the article in the first place
ban anyone from discussing the contents of the article in general
get the original article deleted from the website that was (and still is) hosting it
So what “suppression” are you talking about, again?
I don’t use Facebook or Twitter. How the fuck can they come for me if I’m not using their services?
On the post: GoDaddy Reignites Debate Over Infrastructure Layer Moderation By Banning Texas Anti-Abortion Snitch Site
Might want to check things on your end; site loads fine for me, and I read it every day.
On the post: New Texas Abortion Law Likely To Unleash A Torrent Of Lawsuits Against Online Education, Advocacy And Other Speech
Now to wait for the usual “no censorship on social media” advocates to pour in and proclaim their opposition to all this.
Any minute now…
On the post: Backpage Founders Trial Finally Begins
Someone forked MPC-HC from its original GitHub and has been updating it for what seems like a good while. They’ve even put out new stable releases.
On the post: Computer Repair Shop Owner Has To Pay Twitter's Legal Fees Over Bogus SLAPP Suit Regarding Hunter Biden's Laptop
People love to fuck around, but hate to find out.
On the post: Computer Repair Shop Owner Has To Pay Twitter's Legal Fees Over Bogus SLAPP Suit Regarding Hunter Biden's Laptop
Before any of the usual trolls even fucking says it, I’ll ask the question: How did Twitter “censor” Isaac? Remember that moderation isn’t censorship, no matter how much you want to believe it is.
On the post: GoDaddy Reignites Debate Over Infrastructure Layer Moderation By Banning Texas Anti-Abortion Snitch Site
Only one woman should decide about the abortion issue: a woman who is pregnant. And she should be deciding only for herself. No one should have the right to make a woman give birth—or have an abortion—against her will.
On the post: GoDaddy Reignites Debate Over Infrastructure Layer Moderation By Banning Texas Anti-Abortion Snitch Site
They’re afraid of what might happen if their “side” wins and SCOTUS hears the appeal (which they likely would).
On the post: Backpage Founders Trial Finally Begins
Or don’t have sex. Slut-shaming and prude-shaming are two sides of the same coin: shaming women for controlling their own sex lives.
On the post: Backpage Founders Trial Finally Begins
Virtual porn that is rendered using programs like Source Filmmaker and Blender—both of which will always be more powerful, more user-friendly, and far more successful and well-known than your shit-ass software could ever be—will never replace actual porn. The copyright issue has no relevance to how virtual porn will always seem “off” enough to never be mistaken for the real thing.
Even the most lovingly rendered and detailed virtual porn will never—never—be mistaken for the real deal. And while there may be a certain thrill in seeing characters such as Tifa Lockhart and Aerith Gainsborough getting plowed to (and in) Seventh Heaven, even someone using the best possible models available for those characters will never be able to make them look like real people fucking other real people in a real place.
Oh, and FYI: People already have programs for viewing virtual porn. We call them “video players”. Try using one of those instead of designing software to play a video file in a web browser; I hear MPC-HC recently got an update.
On the post: Biden Has Wasted A Year Failing To Fill Top Telecom Oversight Spots
Now now, let’s be fair here. This isn’t entirely the fault of President Biden.
It’s also the fault of Congressional Democrats for not pushing him harder to get the fucking job done—and done right, might I add.
On the post: FTC Decides Maybe It's Time To Start Asking Why McDonalds Ice Cream Machines Are Broken All The Damn Time
Kytch’s device would only feasibly “take away” part of Taylor’s business (the servicing of Taylor machines). Even then, Taylor could make up for that by, y’know, actually selling its customers a device that would let them properly service Taylor machines. Kytch can’t put Taylor out of business even if it tried to do that.
Taylor, however, is flat-out trying to put Kytch out of business for doing something Taylor wouldn’t: selling Taylor customers a device that would let them properly service Taylor machines. Taylor could legitimately destroy Kytch—we’re talking “scorched earth, nothing lives, nobody tries to rebuild there for a century” levels of annihilation—if the courts find in its favor.
On the post: FTC Decides Maybe It's Time To Start Asking Why McDonalds Ice Cream Machines Are Broken All The Damn Time
On the flip side: What are you doing to help women who are essentially forced to give birth because abortions are either outlawed (in letter or in spirit) or incredibly costly (in both time and money) to access? How are you helping them handle the sudden change in an economic situation that a child brings with them?
On the post: Lessons Learned From Creating Good Faith Debate In A Sea Of Garbage Disinformation
By who? Because Techdirt authors being moderated off a privately owned interactive web service not owned or operated by Techdirt/Mike Masnick/those authors isn’t censorship.
COPYPASTA TIME! [ahem]
The First Amendment protects your rights to speak freely and associate with whomever you want. It doesn’t give you the right to make others listen. It doesn’t give you the right to make others give you access to an audience. And it doesn’t give you the right to make a personal soapbox out of private property you don’t own. Nobody is entitled to a platform or an audience at the expense of someone else.
On the post: GoDaddy Reignites Debate Over Infrastructure Layer Moderation By Banning Texas Anti-Abortion Snitch Site
Yes or no, anonymous coward: Do you believe the law should force all women to give birth once they know they’re pregnant—regardless of the circumstances of conception/the possible danger to the life of the woman?
Next >>