Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
from the lots-of-anonymity dept
This week, one of the stories that got the most response was the extreme claims by the IAB chief that using an adblocker means you hate free speech. One anonymous commenter took first place for insightful with a simple explanation of this common fallacy:
Like many people who wish to impose their views on others, he is confusing free speech with other people freedom to ignore his speech. Free speech rights do not guarantee an audience, let alone permit someone to force an audience to listen to them.
In second place, we’ve got a comment from TechDescartes which examines a particular statement from Kuwait regarding its mandatory DNA database:
The DNA will not be used for medical purposes, such as checking for genetic markers of disease, which will avoid issues of whether people should be told about their predisposition to possibly serious illnesses. Nor will the DNA database be used for “lineage or genealogical reasons.”
Followed by the unwritten word “yet”: “It won’t be used for these purposes…yet.”
For editor’s choice on the insightful side, we start out with an anonymous response to the senators complaining about the FCC’s 25 Mbps broadband standard on the basis that nobody could need that much:
I like that excuse of ever possibly need. That is something that could easily be turned right back around. Why do they need $174,000 salaries? $50,000 is more then they will ever need.
Next, we’ve got TKnarr with some musings on reforming the adversarial justice system:
Thought: apply an old solution. Force the state governments to fund 2 offices for prosecution and defense. An accused who cannot afford an attorney gets to pick which office will handle his defense, with the other office handling the prosecution (if the accused can afford his own attorney, the state can assign prosecution to whichever office they want). Any crossing-over between the offices during a case would result in a mandatory dismissal with prejudice of all charges. The problem should solve itself after that.
Over on the funny side, we start out with this year’s perennial funny story: the monkey selfie copyright fight, which the monkey recently lost on account of being a monkey. Capt ICE Enforcer declared this a travesty of the highest order:
This is absolutely horrible. Now monkeys will not have any incentive to create masterful artworks. It was bad enough that the life of a monkey is usually less than 20 years. Which means that a monkey would only get 90 years max for copyright protections. If I was a monkey, I would go on strike. They should be compensated for all their hard work writing books, singing hit songs, and creating masterful artwork thru the use of brush and photograph. We are about to experience a new dark age.
In second place, we’ve got yet another anonymous comment, again in response to those broadband-fearing senators:
While we’re at it, what’s up with phone numbers that are 10 digits long?
For editor’s choice on the funny side, we start by returning to the IAB chief’s anti-adblocker speech, where one anonymous commenter suggested adding an audiovisual component:
I think it would be poetic if his speech were constantly interrupted by random loud invasive ads projected on the wall behind him.
Finally, we’ve got Crazy Hong Kong Monkey with a response to the unfolding legal fight over the apathetic honey bear:
I guess “Honey Badger Does Care”
That’s all for this week, folks!
Comments on “Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt”
Huh. Always thought it was TRansylvania 6-5000.
Parody on top of Glen Miller’s original song Pennsylvania 6-5000.
The problem is when the prosecution is given way more resources than the defense. That’s not a fair trial. The defense should be given equal resources as the prosecution and the defendant should get to choose which lawyer(s) he gets to spend that money on (the choice should include the option to choose from any lawyer including a private sector attorney). The defense can even negotiate the terms, the attorneys chosen only get paid if the defense wins (or they get paid more if the defense wins).
(Can this create a perverse incentive for the legal system/court to declare a defendant guilty to save money?).
If the defendant is so obviously guilty then the prosecution does not need to choose poor defendants with no money to defend themselves with and to outspend them by a million dollars to one. They should have no problems proving their case on a level playing field where both the defense and the prosecution have equal resources to work with.
How about this: One state funded lawyer’s office with two lawyers assigned to each case. Each lawyer will have the responsibility for coming up with both a prosecution case and a defense case. Then, one is selected as prosecutor at the trial, the other for defense. This will place a lot of burden on investigating in the lawyer’s office, as they will need a complete story in order to argue both sides of the case.
If a person wants to fund a private defense, they would also be required to fund a private prosecution under the same terms.
I see this as fair.
Hmmm, why not condition the funds of public defense to the funds of the prosecution? Ie: they must be the same. Problem solved.
What, you want to Title IX the courts?