Mike Masnick 's Techdirt Comments
Latest Comments (22492)
-
On the post: Confused NY Court Says That Section 230 Doesn’t Block Ridiculous Lawsuit Blaming Social Media For Buffalo Shooter
Mike Masnick ( profile ), 22 Mar, 2024 @ 03:48pmTechnically the issues are different, though, yes, it did strike me how fundamentally similar it feels. But because it's under a different law (this being product liability and that one under terrorism laws) it's a different issue. While the judge doesn't address the cases directly, I imagine the answer would be that those cases would be addressed later on in the process. -
On the post: Copyright Troll Richard Liebowitz Finally Disbarred
Mike Masnick ( profile ), 20 Mar, 2024 @ 06:12pmYes, we covered the many times he was sanctioned and even suspended. But disbarred is another level up.
-
On the post: Supreme Court Seems Skeptical Of The Claims That The Federal Government Coerced Social Media To Moderate
Mike Masnick ( profile ), 18 Mar, 2024 @ 08:09pmWe shall see. If the SCOTUS rules the way I predict, will you come back and admit you were wrong?
-
On the post: Trump Is Right (For The Wrong Reasons): A TikTok Ban In The US Would Be A Huge Problem
Mike Masnick ( profile ), 13 Mar, 2024 @ 12:15amLol, wut? Literally until the beginning of this week I'd never even heard of Yass. It's embarrassing how you trolls have no argument and immediately jump to "he must be paid off." Fuck off.
-
On the post: Once Again, Google Caves To Political Pressure And Supports Questionable STOP CSAM Law
Mike Masnick ( profile ), 12 Mar, 2024 @ 08:37pmGoogle never supported FOSTA. Facebook did. But, yes. But, who knows how this will go.
-
On the post: Max Adds More Ads, Takes Aim As Password Sharing
Mike Masnick ( profile ), 12 Mar, 2024 @ 03:07pmOh wow. Yeah, any of those links from inside the US come back as blocked "not available in your region" but if I VPN elsewhere I can see them. Fascinating.
-
On the post: Max Adds More Ads, Takes Aim As Password Sharing
Mike Masnick ( profile ), 12 Mar, 2024 @ 01:35pmI’m surprised the author hasn’t learned of HBO’s about-face on this. A few days after they announced that the main Last Week Tonight segment would be uploaded to Youtube several days later than it normally would, John Oliver popped up on Youtube to say that not only would the uploads go back to Monday, but they would start uploading episodes in full.
Do you have a cite for that? I haven't heard that anywhere, and looking at Oliver's feeds I see no mention of it, and in searching for reporting on it, all the latest reporting was that it was still being released on Thursdays. -
On the post: 5th Circuit Is Gonna 5th Circus: Declares Age Verification Perfectly Fine Under The First Amendment
Mike Masnick ( profile ), 11 Mar, 2024 @ 12:56pmYes, it is. It doesn’t mean like they didn’t run ads for the book or something. It means it won’t show on any searches for vaccinations, or that matter “anti-vax”. It means it won’t show any searches but an exact match for the name.
You're wrong. You don't know what you're talking about and you're embarrassing yourself (again).Hah. They clearly felt pressure, as they were worried about it (this is part of the whole coercion can be assumed thing) so you’re lying there. But yes, they told the WH “no” for about a week, until they met with the WH in person, and then immediately banned the book.
They clearly did not to anyone who reads the underlying documents. And also, that same email notes that they only put "do not promote" on one book out of 8 that were raised. Surely they're quaking in their boots.Sure. Which is why they reminded everyone they had already banned the books. Pretty clearly at WH request.
Again, do not promote is not "banning" a book. And it was very clearly not at the WH request.The day you do that I will accept that I have won
You've won what? Constantly spewing off topic nonsense? Okay: done deal. Any more off topic posts from you get deleted. You've "won" the prize of being the stupidest fucking troll we've ever had on Techdirt. Congrats. -
On the post: Biden Admin Finally Points Out That The Record In The Murthy Case Is All Lies
Mike Masnick ( profile ), 11 Mar, 2024 @ 12:07pmI linked directly to it, shitass.
You linked directly to internal emails in the White House (from Holmes to Flaherty). You know what's not in there? Any evidence that (1) it was then forwarded to Twitter or (2) that Twitter acted on it. Again, this is why specifics matter and why I keep asking you for the specifics, because when idiots like you take them out of context, stupidity results. When people like me put them back into context, we realize how much less is actually there.Yeah, they did, that was the “policy change”, ya dumb fuuck.
Do not promote is not a ban. I'm not sure how you can be this stupid.I can’t believe you made being this stupid your job.
Your problem is you're too stupid to understand how stupid you are. Meanwhile. I am actually good at my job, which is why I'm successful and you're a nobody. -
On the post: 5th Circuit Is Gonna 5th Circus: Declares Age Verification Perfectly Fine Under The First Amendment
Mike Masnick ( profile ), 11 Mar, 2024 @ 12:02pmThis is entirely off-topic, but Matthew, this has already been explained to you AT LENGTH. The "do not promote" list is not "shadowbanning." It just limits which books get extra promotional treatment. Tons of products are put on the do not promote list, and Amazon made a decision to put anti-vax books on its do not promote list which does nothing to "shadowban" it. The books still show up in search. The books are still purchaseable. They just don't get added to the "Amazon recommends" list. That's it. And, there are TONS OF REASONS for Amazon to choose not to promote anti-vax books. Your conspiracy theory reasoning doesn't make any sense. Indeed, as I've pointed out to you multiple times: it's very, very clear from the email that Amazon felt no serious pressure from the WH on this, but WAS scared of the Buzzfeed article. The entire email is about Buzzfeed's questions and why they probably should update their policies to handle COVID conspiracy theories because of Buzzfeed. Your inability to read is, once again, noted. But also, your willingness to sabotage our comment threads with off-topic debunked nonsense. I have no problem with you spewing your baseless nonsense when it's on topic (it's hilarious, frankly, and I enjoy the entertainment), but if you keep posting OFF TOPIC posts, I'm going to start deleting them.
-
On the post: Biden Admin Finally Points Out That The Record In The Murthy Case Is All Lies
Mike Masnick ( profile ), 11 Mar, 2024 @ 10:41amBut it does show the fed gov (WH) asking content to be banned, which it then was
WHERE? Where does it show the WH demanding content be banned?This is pathetic. You lost. Admit it.
This is the opposite of true, Matthew. I asked you for a citation and the one you gave DOES NOT SAY WHAT YOU PRETEND IT SAYS. This is why everyone makes fun of you.Now: Why did lie about the timing of when Amazon banned that book vs when they learned of Buzzfeed?
I didn't. Again, already asked and answered. YOU MISREAD THE DOCUMENT and don't understand how things work. I can't believe you're going to continue to get owned this way. THEY DID NOT BAN ANYTHING on the 9th. The fact that you are too stupid to understand what happened is hilarious to everyone watching you flail around here, but get a fucking grip on reality Matthew. -
On the post: Biden Admin Finally Points Out That The Record In The Murthy Case Is All Lies
Mike Masnick ( profile ), 10 Mar, 2024 @ 11:13pmMatt, it's time for you to get a grip on reality.
Except you did, captured in black and white. And if you want undermine that, that undermines, quite simply, EVERYTHING, your disingenuous ass has ever claimed.
No, the PDF you shared AT NO POINT shows the CDC asking anyone to ban anyone or to remove any information. It VERY CLEARLY states that Facebook asked the CDC to review info at times, and that the CDC sometimes sent back some posts that it asked FB whether or not they violated FB's policies. At the same time the CDC official DIRECTLY DECLARED that she did not want FB to censor content. I mean, it's RIGHT FUCKING THERE. Why can you not admit reality.Incorrect. They put the book on question on shadowban on the 9th. You seem to be hanging your hat on “Do not promote”. “Do not promote” is exactly the same as a shadowban.
See? This is again where you demonstrate your ignorance. No, "do not promote" is not the same as "shadowban." Shadowban would be not allowing people to find the book. The "do not promote" list is just whether or not the book shows up in the promoted boxes up top when you do a search. Very few books get promoted in the first place. Putting a book in "do not promote" just means that it never can get into those promotional boxes. It is not, at all, the equivalent of a shadowban. The problem, Matthew, is that you don't know what you're talking about. And refuse to admit when I prove you wrong over and over and over and over again.None of this, of course, addresses how I met exactly your demands, and you reneged like coarwardly shiite.
No. You did not "meet my demands." This is why I asked for specifics. You DID NOT PROVIDE SPECIFICS that met my request. You provided something that DEBUNKED YOUR CLAIMS, but you're TOO FUCKING STUPID to understand it. So, instead, you dance like the pathetic monkey you are. Do you think you're making someone at Gateway Pundit think you're smart. Everyone here knows you're an ignorant fool with serious issues. -
On the post: Biden Admin Finally Points Out That The Record In The Murthy Case Is All Lies
Mike Masnick ( profile ), 10 Mar, 2024 @ 09:57pmMatthew this is embarrassing. You really ought to stop.
YOu asked for an example of fed gov of demand of censorship. In the meantime, I told you CDC demanded that, and that happened
Except it didn't. The document YOU shared as proof literally has the CDC person expressing their concern about social media censorship and saying they don't want that because it means not being able to hear what people are talking about. The only thing they did was answer questions from Facebook about whether or not certain claims were accurate. The filings show ZERO support for the idea that the CDC EVER asked them to censor anything. You said the CDC did that, but the evidence does not support that. I am not moving the goalposts. I am just asking you to ACTUALLY SUPPORT YOUR STATEMENTS, which you cannot do.No no, that’s an actual lie.. They “removed” (really it was a shadowban, but it has the same practical effect) On the 9th.
That's false. They claimed that they put anti-vax books on the "do not promote" list on the 9th. They did not "shadowban" anything. After Buzzfeed reached out to them, THEN they had a conversation about how to "limit visibility." You're either lying or too fucking stupid to know what you are reading. I'll yelp you out: what the email (and internal one between Amazon employees only) says in response to a Buzzfeed request:We've had CRM review all titles mentioned and have worked with the teams who specialize on Search, Reviews, and Personalization tools. One book (out of 9) was found to violate our COVID policy and was removed. As a reminder, we did enable Do Not Promote for anti-vax books whose primary purpose is to persuade readers vaccines are unsafe or ineffective on 3/9, and will review additional handling options for these books with you, [REDACTED] and [REDACTED] on 3/19. However, many of the books highlighted by Buzzfeed are about COVID conspiracies not vaccination, and are therefore out of scope for this policy effort. CRM plans to resume work on a broad misinformation policy again once we align on an approach for anti-vax books.
So, again, what they're saying is that on 3/9 the only change that was made was NOT to "shadowban" or "ban" books, only to have one category of books (anti-vax, not even covid conspiracies) be placed on the "do not promote" list, which is not shadowbanning at all. It's just that some books get recommended and some books don't. Anyone searching for them still would have found them. Furthermore, that email reveals that they did nothing about 8 out of the 9 books, and the only policy change on 3/9 was about keeping anti-vax books off the promote list. As the article notes, they're having another meeting on 3/19 to deal with the Buzzfeed requests, which is where they talked about COVID conspiracies, which you FALSELY say they already "censored" due to White House involvement. I get it, you can't read, because you WON'T LET YOUR BRAIN learn how fucking stupid you are. -
On the post: Biden Admin Finally Points Out That The Record In The Murthy Case Is All Lies
Mike Masnick ( profile ), 10 Mar, 2024 @ 09:34pmYou asked me to find an example of the federal government doing so.
I did. And you replied that the CDC did. I asked for evidence to back up that, and what you provided did not support that. Now you're arguing about something else? WHICH EMAIL are you talking about Matthew?Yes, you did. You cited an email dated on the 12th, talking about banning the book on the 9th
OMG, are you still going on about that? You READ IT WRONG MATTHEW. No, the email on the 12th was about the Buzzfeed article, and they didn't remove any books until the Buzzfeed story progressed. On the 9th, they simply set their policy saying they WOULD NOT PROMOTE anti-vax books. But it was after the Buzzfeed request that they talked about changing the visibility of anti-vax books. Dangerous anti-vax books were still available and easily findable until the media started asking questions. The White House had no impact on that. Learn to fucking read. Honestly, Matthew, I've never come across anyone who is so bad at reading comprehension. -
On the post: Biden Admin Finally Points Out That The Record In The Murthy Case Is All Lies
Mike Masnick ( profile ), 10 Mar, 2024 @ 12:33amI said the federal gov, fuuckhead, the CDC was just one example. Tbc, the CDC did it to, but I already found you one such case, I’m not gonna find every such.
No. You said "federal gov't" in the first comment. I asked you for examples in the reply. You responded that the CDC absolutely told them to remove "true but misleading" content, so I asked you for evidence of THAT claim, which you insisted were a part of this case. You then presented Judge Doughty's ruling WHICH DOES NOT SAY THAT THE CDC DID THAT. That's why I ask for specifics, Matthew. Because I know you don't know the first thing about how any of this works, and you believe the utter nonsense some nonsense news sources feed you. And you can NEVER EVER back up your claims. The CDC did no such thing. I have no proved you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. And all the while, I keep getting you to come back here and dance like a little monkey for the entertainment of everyone here. It's absolutely hilarious how easy you are to make dance like a puppet while showing off how ignorant you are at every step. It's hilarious. Everyone here knows you're full of shit. You are not convincing everyone because the actual evidence shows over and over and over again you have no clue how any of this works, that you're gullible as fuck, and that you fall for any fantasy pushed from the likes of Jim Jordan or Gateway Pundit or whoever else. So what are you doing here? It's not convincing anyone, but it's entertainment for everyone here to see you flail and flail and flail, little monkey.Your denial amounts to that the fingerprints don’t count cuz they’re for some reason the wrong fingerprints. That basically doesn’t happen. The email quoted is NOT a simple mischaracterization. It was a direct request to remove which was honored.
I don't even know which email you're talking about. I asked you for evidence to back up your claims about the CDC. You pointed to that PDF which does not support your claims. At least admit you have no fucking clue? Or are you just going to keep dancing monkey?If the judge were wholesale manufacturing evidence someone else, including the appellate court, and the probably several dozen to a hundred or so law clerks which have no looked at this would have noticed.
It has been pointed out by at least two briefs. Not sure what else you expect to happen, though thanks for confirming you don't read the briefs.The CDC absolutely requested content be taken down, but I don’t have to find an example to attached to this case, you didn’t ask me too, I don’t hafta and I’m not gonna.
Lol. Monkey dance! You absolutely made a direct claim about the CDC. I asked you above to back it up. You are still claiming it happened despite your own inability to present evidence that backs it up. You're a loser, Matthew. And every single person who reads this knows that Matthew Bennett is a loser.Now, for I think the 7th or 8thy time: Why did you lie about the timing of Amazon, Buzzefeed, and when they banned that book? Cuz you did lie about it.
I didn't lie Matthew. I presented the actual evidence and why it was misrepresented by Jim Jordan. I get that you now have to lie about it because your ego can't take how wrong you are. But god damn this is funny, Matthew. Keep dancing, little monkey. Keep dancing. -
On the post: Biden Admin Finally Points Out That The Record In The Murthy Case Is All Lies
Mike Masnick ( profile ), 09 Mar, 2024 @ 05:38pmSo you’re just a disengenuous fuuck, then. Cuz unless you’re trying to pretend that the email quoted is made up, it is exactly what you asked for.
Again, the document shows NO EXAMPLES of CDC asking for someone to be shadowbanned or demanding that truthful, but misleading info be taken down. You can repeat your lie all you want. It does not change reality.The post was removed. Per request. Do you somehow think the judge is entering a false record? GO THE FUUCK HOME YOU’RE DRUNK.
Which post? WHICH FUCKING POST MATTHEW? And BASED ON WHICH EMAIL? I've read the document. I don't see anything that has the CDC saying to shadowban or demanding truthful but misleading info be removed. And, yes, the judge entered multiple false things in the record AS THIS POST DETAILS. He presented Rob Flaherty's email as if it was about content removals when it had nothing to do with that. Separately, as I've pointed out in the past, he INSERTED WORDS IN A QUOTE that totally changed the meaning. Personally, I think it's an impeachable offense, in part because it leads total fuckups like you to believe THINGS THAT DID NOT HAPPEN. You're such a gullible shitstain. -
On the post: Biden Admin Finally Points Out That The Record In The Murthy Case Is All Lies
Mike Masnick ( profile ), 09 Mar, 2024 @ 02:55pmAnd near the end of that article is this link, which seems to match your request exactly:
Lol. It does not. See, Matthew, this is why I was asking you for specifics, because it's the specifics that matter. The PDF you point to is the district court ruling by Judge Doughty, the same one that was mostly overturned by the 5th Circuit because they realized how off the farm Doughty was. But, even if we accept Doughty's findings as accurate, it STILL DOES NOT GIVE A SINGLE EXAMPLE of what I asked for. What it does show is (1) Facebook sometimes sending some information to the CDC asking them if it was accurate. Not the CDC demanding "shadow banning" or the removal of "true but misleading" info and (2) the CDC occasionally flagging info for Facebook to review under its own policies, and not suggesting that anything had to be removed, just asking how it fits with Facebook's policies. Again, this is why I ask, and this is why I want to be specific. Facebook should always been allowed to ask an expert agency "is this info accurate?" and then decide what to do about it. And the CDC should be able to flag content to Facebook and say "does this violate your policies." At no point, however, even in the no longer relevant Doughty ruling, does it show any evidence of either of the things you claimed. Indeed, it shows the opposite, as it notes that the CDC employee in question explicitly expressed concern about Facebook being too aggressive in pulling content down because "if content were censored and removed from social-media platforms, government communicators would not know what the citizen’s “true concerns” were." That's directly from the CDC witness. So, Matthew, I have to ask again, where is the evidence of (1) the CDC telling sites to shadowban someone and (2) telling them to remove truthful but misleading info. I eagerly await your answer. -
On the post: Biden Admin Finally Points Out That The Record In The Murthy Case Is All Lies
Mike Masnick ( profile ), 08 Mar, 2024 @ 05:42pmAgain, Matty, all I'm asking for a single citation. I've gone through the docket. I don't see it anywhere. But, fine, if you have a citation to one of those "every other article" you've read about the case "written by actual lawyers" that presents the actual evidence of the CDC doing what you claim, I'll accept that. Can you do it? I doubt it. But again, my offer stands. Prove me wrong on this.
Why did you lie about the dates of Amazon shadowbanning that book vs when they heard about some supposed upcoming Buzzfeed article? They had already banned the book, 3 days earlier.
I ignored this because it's not what we're talking about and because I already responded to it when it first came up. There's no need to rip your idiocy to shreds yet again. I recognize that you have a near total inability to comprehend how the world works, and that includes linear time. You are the one who got this wrong. -
On the post: Biden Admin Finally Points Out That The Record In The Murthy Case Is All Lies
Mike Masnick ( profile ), 08 Mar, 2024 @ 04:17pmOkay so you claim twice in here that the CDC demanded Twitter make moderation decisions. One to "shadow ban" a user (and, dude, the word is "plaintiff" not "plaintive") and another that it suppress true but misleading info. Surely you can point to where in the docket the evidence is for both of those claims. Because I've gone through much of the docket and have not seen evidence of either claim. So I'm hoping you can help me find it. If there is such evidence of the CDC doing either of those things, I'll readily admit that I was wrong. So here's your chance Matt.
-
On the post: Biden Admin Finally Points Out That The Record In The Murthy Case Is All Lies
Mike Masnick ( profile ), 07 Mar, 2024 @ 11:39pmI don’t what the federal government telling companies what speech to ban.
Cool. Give me a single example, just one, of what speech the government in this case told social media to ban that was then banned. If the record is so clear, surely you can point to the evidence in this case of (1) the government saying to ban certain speech and (2) that speech being banned. The docket is public. Point me to the evidence. Or admit you don't know what the fuck you're talking about and base your nonsense off of some partisan news source you read that one time that has no fucking clue either. We all know which it is.
This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our
privacy policy