Over the years, I have disagreed with Mr. Masnick and his readers on a plethora of issues. However, this is the first time where I agree 100% with everything in this article.
Even independents can change their views......Thanks, Mike
...however, you are totally right. An a la carte menu where I pay the SAME price per channel, regardless of how many or how few channels I choose to watch.
That also might spur content providers, based on which channels get purchased the most (or, conversely, the ones that no one purchases...) to produce better content. I firmly believe people will pay a fair price for GOOD, QUALITY content.
I think his game plan is to wait until Congress recesses for the Christmas holiday.....
Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by Yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.
Re: Re: This isn't the way the internet is supposed to work.-SAY
"You Keep Using That Word, I Do Not Think It Means What You Think It Means" - Princess Bride.
I believe what Mike is saying here is that if Facebook is operating within the US, then any and all Facebook content that someone IN the US can see is regulated by US law, whereas if someone is using Facebook in Iran, than any content that someone in Iran sees is governed by the laws of Iran.
Ok. First things first. I am NOT now, nor have I ever been, employed by TechDirt or any of its owners. I am, however, a loyal reader. A "fanboy", if you will. chortle
Also, for your edification, (as I have stated in previous replies to your comments) I am not a left-leaning liberal. If one must "put a label" on my political views, I believe Independent, perhaps Libertarian MIGHT be somewhat more accurate, although not exactly. For example, I support Medicare for All, but I am somewhat dubious as to how the government is going to pay for it. Immigration? Absolutely. That's how our tiny little country was founded. But, like 99% of the rest of the countries around the world, I believe in having requirements in place to vet potential future-citizens to make sure they aren't coming here to do us harm. (Totally off-topic, I know).
That being said, I generally (maybe 70-80% of the time) agree with and/or support the views I read here. There are also opinions that Mike and his crew post here that I disagee with.
One of your complaints is that "fanboys" like me are simply shooting one-liners at you, and not taking any time to have a "civil discussion" of your perceived grievances. So, I finished binge-watching a show I discovered (so fun), and decided to take a stab at MY personal OPINION in response to your recent screeds. (admittedly more of a diatribe than a discussion, but hey.....)
Now, your chief complaint of late is that Mike Masnick is personally blocking you, or, by extension, is using some sort of artificial intelligence algorithm to block your comments.
I've already notated the TechDirt article that explains the difference between Moderation, Discretion and Censorship. To sum up:
Moderation is a platform operator saying 'we don't do that here'.
Discretion is you saying 'I won't do that there'.
Censorship is someone saying 'you can't do that anywhere' before or after threats of either violence or government intervention.
Let me try a different tack:
The example is me inviting you over to my house to have dinner. Now, keep in mind, this is my house. I own it. I pay the utility bills, I mow the lawn, I pay the property taxes. You get the picture.
Now, you enter my house, greet my wife and kids, and we enjoy a pleasent evening of conversation over some tasty comestibles. At the end of the evening, you give my son a quick fist-bump, tell my daughter the drawing she showed you really does look like a dinosaur, and thank my wife for a lovely dinner. Nice, right? I would hazard a guess that out there, in the rest of the country, if this occurred in this manner, you'd probably be asked back. Because you acted nicely and politely.
Now let's look it in a different way: Same setup, but this time, you get drunk, cuss at my children and yell at wife and tell her she's fat. Now, I would be tempted to tell you to get the hell out of my house, but, I know my wife. She's a redhead. You try THAT behaviour and she will literally rip off your head and shit down your neck! (She's really badass).
And why, you ask? Simple. It's my house. And in my house, I make the rules, NOT YOU. You are a GUEST. That's it. You act like an asshole, and I'll treat you like an asshole. But, you act nicely and I'll act nicely.
This way-too-verbose-thought-experiment is very much the same as this blog. Mr. Masnick and his company OWN it. They pay someone for the domain name registation, email services, yada-yada-yada.
No website has a duty to provide YOU with ANYTHING. You are granted tacit permission to read the blog posts at will. The only way I could conceivably see where TechDirt (or any website, like FB or Twitter) MIGHT be obligated to provide you with a "right" for the world to bask in your editorial awesomeness is if you were PAYING a fee for such. You aren't. So, pretty much, you get what you pay for.
Now, at TechDirt, (like so many other blogs around the world) "Maz" provides a method by which the collection of readers can flag a comment. Since I can't drop an image here, TechDirt provides FIVE, - count 'em FIVE - ways to flag any comment. Three of those TD provides at no charge to the average reader: Insightful, LOL, or 'Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam'. (You could also opt to pay for credits that allow you to promote a comment as the First Word or the Last Word.)
So, along comes a person who posts a comment that someone, a few, several, or a veritable fuckload of people decide is abusive, or trolling or spammy. I am guessing that (at some point) the comment that the majority of readers has decided is either abusive, trolling, spam or some combination of the three will get "hidden". Or, TechDirt may use some sort of artifical intelligence that chooses to hide a given comment. But, this is merely a guess. Why? BECAUSE I HAVE NO CONCRETE PROOF.
I believe it is self-evident that the majority of readers disagree with your comment(s). Sorry, pal, not everyone is going to agree with 100% of the time. That's life.
Your comments decry your perceived "right" to post on a website. You don't HAVE a "right" to post a comment. You have an opportunity, yes. You have a priviledge, certainly. But again, this is just MY OPINION.
Your comments make wild claims that TechDirt or Mike himself is enaging in some sort of nefarious behaviour to deprive you of these supposed "rights" to free speech. This is also incorrect. Neither TechDirt nor any other venue on the internet has any legal obligation to you (or me, for that matter). If you disagree, that's fine. Again, show me your proof. Backing up one accusation with another (restated) accusation IS NOT PROOF. It's your OPINION.
So, all this bellyaching and kvetching is simply because you were INCONVENIENCED. Nothing was taken from you, ergo, nothing is owed to you.
The First Amendment states: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Source
That prevents CONGRESS from prohibiting your comments. Not a privately owned blog.
There you go. That's my 2 cents. I would be glad to continue this discussion, but first you would have to possess....
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: And having RUN the site for well over hour..
You clowns show EXACTLY why Parler has to cut down on the leftist NOISE. You're just heckling without thought, add nothing. BARKING ANKLE-BITERS, as I've LONG called you.
Re: Re: Re: And having RUN the site for well over hour...
I suppose that Techdirt / Maz for once thought would look suspicious if comments hidden and harassment while he's criticizing Parler for responding to such
Or..maybe he actually has a life and is enjoying quality time with his family? Washing his car? Reading a nice book, perhaps?
Ignoring internet trolls? Solving a Rubik's cube?...…………..
On the post: Beware Of Facebook CEOs Bearing Section 230 Reform Proposals
Re: innocuous leader -- M's pieces usually seemed locked down
I disagree, I think he just can't stand assholes like you
On the post: Beware Of Facebook CEOs Bearing Section 230 Reform Proposals
Total agreement
Over the years, I have disagreed with Mr. Masnick and his readers on a plethora of issues. However, this is the first time where I agree 100% with everything in this article.
Even independents can change their views......Thanks, Mike
On the post: Beware Of Facebook CEOs Bearing Section 230 Reform Proposals
Re: WHEW! Worst ever blocking, then suddenly none.
No one is complaining to Mr. Masnick about his decision to block YOU :P
On the post: Content Moderation Case Study: Using Copyright To Take Down A Transformative Criticism Video (2019)
Re: Re: Re: Re: So which is it, oh case-history guru? Not contes
You're the only one to blame. It was solely your own decision to be a fucktard.
On the post: AT&T Is Sad Because Nobody Wants To Overpay For DirecTV
Re: Say goodbye
...however, you are totally right. An a la carte menu where I pay the SAME price per channel, regardless of how many or how few channels I choose to watch.
That also might spur content providers, based on which channels get purchased the most (or, conversely, the ones that no one purchases...) to produce better content. I firmly believe people will pay a fair price for GOOD, QUALITY content.
On the post: AT&T Is Sad Because Nobody Wants To Overpay For DirecTV
Re: Say goodbye
Awww, it's just so ADORABLE when they have hope....
On the post: You'll Need Fifty Stimulus Checks To Pay The Damages You Might Get Hit With Under The CASE Act
Re: Re: Re: Re: OOOH, getting FAST on the CENSORING!
Actually, he's being moderated, not censored. If he were being censored, he would be allowed to shitpost anywhere on the internet.
He's only being moderated here because he's an asshole, and TD readers have only a certain amount of tolerance for assholeness.
On the post: Congress (Once Again) Sells Out To Hollywood: Sneaks CASE Act And Felony Streaming Bill Into Government Funding Omnibus
Re:
This is another page from the why-the-fuck-did-SCOTUS-kill-the-line-item-veto department.....
On the post: Trump Makes It Official: He's Going To Pull Military Funding, Because Congress Won't Kill The Open Internet
He has to....
I think his game plan is to wait until Congress recesses for the Christmas holiday.....
Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by Yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.[Source] (https://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec7.html)
On the post: EU Court Backs Austrian Court, Says Local Libel Law Applies Everywhere In The World
Re: EU's reach
Yeah, and there was that one Austrian fella.......
On the post: EU Court Backs Austrian Court, Says Local Libel Law Applies Everywhere In The World
Re: Re: This isn't the way the internet is supposed to work.-SAY
"You Keep Using That Word, I Do Not Think It Means What You Think It Means" - Princess Bride.
I believe what Mike is saying here is that if Facebook is operating within the US, then any and all Facebook content that someone IN the US can see is regulated by US law, whereas if someone is using Facebook in Iran, than any content that someone in Iran sees is governed by the laws of Iran.
Mike: Yes, no?
On the post: Will Parler Users Treat Its 'Glitch' That Hid Georgia Election Content The Same Way They Treated A Twitter Glitch?
Re: Anonymous Coward and his comments.....
Oi.
Ok. First things first. I am NOT now, nor have I ever been, employed by TechDirt or any of its owners. I am, however, a loyal reader. A "fanboy", if you will. chortle
Also, for your edification, (as I have stated in previous replies to your comments) I am not a left-leaning liberal. If one must "put a label" on my political views, I believe Independent, perhaps Libertarian MIGHT be somewhat more accurate, although not exactly. For example, I support Medicare for All, but I am somewhat dubious as to how the government is going to pay for it. Immigration? Absolutely. That's how our tiny little country was founded. But, like 99% of the rest of the countries around the world, I believe in having requirements in place to vet potential future-citizens to make sure they aren't coming here to do us harm. (Totally off-topic, I know).
That being said, I generally (maybe 70-80% of the time) agree with and/or support the views I read here. There are also opinions that Mike and his crew post here that I disagee with.
One of your complaints is that "fanboys" like me are simply shooting one-liners at you, and not taking any time to have a "civil discussion" of your perceived grievances. So, I finished binge-watching a show I discovered (so fun), and decided to take a stab at MY personal OPINION in response to your recent screeds. (admittedly more of a diatribe than a discussion, but hey.....)
Now, your chief complaint of late is that Mike Masnick is personally blocking you, or, by extension, is using some sort of artificial intelligence algorithm to block your comments.
I've already notated the TechDirt article that explains the difference between Moderation, Discretion and Censorship. To sum up:
Let me try a different tack:
The example is me inviting you over to my house to have dinner. Now, keep in mind, this is my house. I own it. I pay the utility bills, I mow the lawn, I pay the property taxes. You get the picture.
Now, you enter my house, greet my wife and kids, and we enjoy a pleasent evening of conversation over some tasty comestibles. At the end of the evening, you give my son a quick fist-bump, tell my daughter the drawing she showed you really does look like a dinosaur, and thank my wife for a lovely dinner. Nice, right? I would hazard a guess that out there, in the rest of the country, if this occurred in this manner, you'd probably be asked back. Because you acted nicely and politely.
Now let's look it in a different way: Same setup, but this time, you get drunk, cuss at my children and yell at wife and tell her she's fat. Now, I would be tempted to tell you to get the hell out of my house, but, I know my wife. She's a redhead. You try THAT behaviour and she will literally rip off your head and shit down your neck! (She's really badass).
And why, you ask? Simple. It's my house. And in my house, I make the rules, NOT YOU. You are a GUEST. That's it. You act like an asshole, and I'll treat you like an asshole. But, you act nicely and I'll act nicely.
This way-too-verbose-thought-experiment is very much the same as this blog. Mr. Masnick and his company OWN it. They pay someone for the domain name registation, email services, yada-yada-yada.
No website has a duty to provide YOU with ANYTHING. You are granted tacit permission to read the blog posts at will. The only way I could conceivably see where TechDirt (or any website, like FB or Twitter) MIGHT be obligated to provide you with a "right" for the world to bask in your editorial awesomeness is if you were PAYING a fee for such. You aren't. So, pretty much, you get what you pay for.
Now, at TechDirt, (like so many other blogs around the world) "Maz" provides a method by which the collection of readers can flag a comment. Since I can't drop an image here, TechDirt provides FIVE, - count 'em FIVE - ways to flag any comment. Three of those TD provides at no charge to the average reader: Insightful, LOL, or 'Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam'. (You could also opt to pay for credits that allow you to promote a comment as the First Word or the Last Word.)
So, along comes a person who posts a comment that someone, a few, several, or a veritable fuckload of people decide is abusive, or trolling or spammy. I am guessing that (at some point) the comment that the majority of readers has decided is either abusive, trolling, spam or some combination of the three will get "hidden". Or, TechDirt may use some sort of artifical intelligence that chooses to hide a given comment. But, this is merely a guess. Why? BECAUSE I HAVE NO CONCRETE PROOF.
I believe it is self-evident that the majority of readers disagree with your comment(s). Sorry, pal, not everyone is going to agree with 100% of the time. That's life.
Your comments decry your perceived "right" to post on a website. You don't HAVE a "right" to post a comment. You have an opportunity, yes. You have a priviledge, certainly. But again, this is just MY OPINION.
Your comments make wild claims that TechDirt or Mike himself is enaging in some sort of nefarious behaviour to deprive you of these supposed "rights" to free speech. This is also incorrect. Neither TechDirt nor any other venue on the internet has any legal obligation to you (or me, for that matter). If you disagree, that's fine. Again, show me your proof. Backing up one accusation with another (restated) accusation IS NOT PROOF. It's your OPINION.
So, all this bellyaching and kvetching is simply because you were INCONVENIENCED. Nothing was taken from you, ergo, nothing is owed to you.
The First Amendment states:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.SourceThat prevents CONGRESS from prohibiting your comments. Not a privately owned blog.
There you go. That's my 2 cents. I would be glad to continue this discussion, but first you would have to possess....
On the post: Will Parler Users Treat Its 'Glitch' That Hid Georgia Election Content The Same Way They Treated A Twitter Glitch?
Re: Parler moments of lulzs.
Apparently debunked by Parler's CEO....
https://thetimesofnewyork.com/2020/11/25/parler-ceo-john-matze-debunks-rumors-platform-was-h acked-theyre-simply-obsessive-about-us/
On the post: Will Parler Users Treat Its 'Glitch' That Hid Georgia Election Content The Same Way They Treated A Twitter Glitch?
Re: Parler moments of lulzs.
Following up....
I tried to go to https://home.parler.com and it appears to be a broken link.
On the post: Will Parler Users Treat Its 'Glitch' That Hid Georgia Election Content The Same Way They Treated A Twitter Glitch?
Re: Parler moments of lulzs.
I just shot Mountain Dew out of my nose when I clicked that link!!!! :P
On the post: Will Parler Users Treat Its 'Glitch' That Hid Georgia Election Content The Same Way They Treated A Twitter Glitch?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: And having RUN the site for well over hour..
You clowns show EXACTLY why Parler has to cut down on the leftist NOISE. You're just heckling without thought, add nothing. BARKING ANKLE-BITERS, as I've LONG called you......and we've all LONG ignored.......
On the post: Will Parler Users Treat Its 'Glitch' That Hid Georgia Election Content The Same Way They Treated A Twitter Glitch?
Re: Re: Re: A "safe space" for leftists / snowflakes m
You are correct. I should waste my time toying with you.
Your soporific comments clearly demonstrate your missing chromosome...
Oooh, my show's on! Ok, bored now, moving on, trollboy.
On the post: Will Parler Users Treat Its 'Glitch' That Hid Georgia Election Content The Same Way They Treated A Twitter Glitch?
Re: Re: Re: Maz jeers at this? Why? Do you want insults and bull
`
noun
a restatement of a text or passage giving the meaning in another form, as for clearness; rewording.
`
I did neither of those two. I just copied and pasted text as it appeared.
(fixed that for you)
On the post: Will Parler Users Treat Its 'Glitch' That Hid Georgia Election Content The Same Way They Treated A Twitter Glitch?
Re: Ah. NOW Techdirt is reverting to censoring as usual.
Proof? You have proof?
On the post: Will Parler Users Treat Its 'Glitch' That Hid Georgia Election Content The Same Way They Treated A Twitter Glitch?
Re: Re: Re: And having RUN the site for well over hour...
I suppose that Techdirt / Maz for once thought would look suspicious if comments hidden and harassment while he's criticizing Parler for responding to suchOr..maybe he actually has a life and is enjoying quality time with his family? Washing his car? Reading a nice book, perhaps?
Ignoring internet trolls? Solving a Rubik's cube?...…………..
Next >>