Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt

from the it-is-written dept

This week, our first place winner on the insightful side is That One Guy in response to the police actually admitting fault in a SWAT raid on the wrong address, for once:

This? Do this more often. Do this ALL the time

Well now, if police acted like this all the time I and many others would be much more likely to cut them some slack on a regular basis when they screw up other times.

They screwed up and they owned it.

No attempt to shift the blame, no attempt to drag the innocent person through the mud and/or try to shift the narrative from ‘SWAT team raids wrong house’ to ‘vile (probable) criminal shoots two cops for what are surely heinous reasons.’

While it’s unfortunate, as noted in the article, that this isn’t the default, and it is therefore a pleasant surprise when police actually show some personal responsibility like this, it is still a pleasant surprise nonetheless. Now if it can start happening with such regularity that it stops being a surprise, and is instead treated as what it should have been, ‘just how it works’, that’d be great.

In second place, we’ve got ryuugami responding to another situation in which the FBI put US citizens on the no fly list for refusing to become informants:

Land of the Free, Home of the Brave.

You’d think the people charged with protecting a country and everything it stands for wouldn’t keep undermining that country and everything it stands for with their every breath, but here we are. Again. *sigh*

For editor’s choice on the insightful side, we start out with a response from Gary to Twitter’s ongoing moderation woes:

Silly But

But this is what happens when they are put under pressure to “Do Something” about fake news.
“Something” was done.

Next, we’ve got a comment from crade about the infuriating and essentially meaningless “left/right” political dynamic of the content moderation debate:

So basically as soon as left leaning people start making companies suddenly the right thinks capitalism doesn’t work and the govn’t should be controlling how big companies operate because they aren’t being “fair” enough to everyone.

This is modern conservative thinking?

Am I the only one who finds all the whining about being treated unfair by the big internet companies and how we need to “do something about it” extremely… left?

Over on the funny side, our first place winner comes after an occasional Techdirt formatting bug struck last week’s comment post, resulting in the right hand side of the text being obscured behind the page sidebar. Justok made an excellent joke:

Censorship of the RIGHT.

In second place, we’ve got DannyB responding to the should-be-obvious finding that yes, giving cops the finger is protected speech:

Some cops need to have their patrol duty restricted to patrolling only safe spaces where they won’t be offended.

For editor’s choice on the funny side, first we’ve got Baron von Robber with a take on Alex Jones’s social media bans:

Alex Jones is a crisis actor pretending he got banned. He’s really hiding in a pizza parlor basement with some martian kids.

And finally, we’ve got an anonymous response to the invocation of a Kim Dotcom quote in support of the argument for why Google, Twitter, Facebook et al need to be controlled:

I too studied under noted US constitutional law professor and justice Kim Dotcom.

That’s all for this week, folks!


Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
39 Comments
Mark Andre Prisal says:

FUNNIEST is "Rich" admits Techdirt doesn't want "free speech"!

It’s sad that you conflate free speech with a blog’s comment section.

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20180923/22385240700/twelve-rules-not-being-total-free-speech-hypocrite.shtml#c42

There you have "Rich" clearly stating exactly what I do! He blurted that Techdirt poses as a modern "web-log" but in fact intends / wishes to retain full editorial control just like an old-fashioned print magazine.

Techdirt’s claims of hosting a forum for "free speech" are FALSE. The comments are supposed to A) make Masnick look good (as Rush Limbaugh used to openly say about his radio show callers), and B) support his corporatist agenda (as also true for Rush Limbaugh, though neither states it plainly). Tacitly, "Rich" also admits that it’s a magazine format.

It’s true that The Masnick doesn’t apply that entirely, but only because CAN’T in practical fact! Not and be consistent with all his preaching. He’s STUCK with what wrote long ago before his foibles and bias became obvious.

Mark Andre Prisal says:

Re: FUNNIEST is "Rich" admits Techdirt doesn't want "free speech"!

Now, the mechanism that Masnick intentionally provides by way of both HTML and server code is all that allows "Gary" to boast this:

And by downvoting you to oblivion, we exercise Our free speech – see how that works?

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20180923/22385240700/twelve-rules-not-being-total-free-speech-hypocrite.shtml#c83

Right, "Gary"! Techdirt sides with you against me otherwise you’d LOSE the argument! I don’t dispute that it’s partisan. You exactly proved my complaint, silly.

First, shows opinion that the purpose of "free speech" is to suppress that of others. 2nd, seems to have strong proprietary feeling EXACTLY as astro-turfing would. 3rd, it’s again clear that "free speech" is NOT wanted here, only echoes to make Masnick look good. 4th, but ignore those, it’s at best the clique here not wanting discussion at all, which is surely the very purpose of a comments section! — Go ahead and do away with that, Masnick! Neither your fanboys nor I even want it!

My opinion is that "Gary" is actually more astro-turfing; the writing tone strongly resembles that of Timothy Geigner, aka "Dark Helmet", and lately strongly defends the site.

Mark Andre Prisal says:

Re: FUNNIEST is "Rich" admits Techdirt doesn't want "free speech"!

Whatever Masnick’s actual opinions, these are facts:

A) Techdirt does use code / provide button for the censoring mechanism.

B) Fanboys abuse that mechanism to suppress viewpoints well within common law, rather than "report" what’s outside it.

*C) Masnick / Techdirt know point B, but do nothing at all, not even remark that all viewpoints should be seen. Tacitly approving low-level censorship for YEARS.

D) Masnick / Techdirt won’t even state whether an Administrator has final approval, which is not only dodging responsibility but dishonest.

E) Masnick has repeated this fundamental stance as RARE statement, no hedging:

"And, I think it’s fairly important to state that these platforms have their own First Amendment rights, which allow them to deny service to anyone."

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20170825/01300738081/nazis-internet-policing-content-free-speech.shtml

This all applies to Communications Decency Action, Section 230. I hold that Techdirt has no immunity because the comment by "Gary" above is true: this is indeed NOT a "free speech" comments / discussion taking advantage of two-way communication on the internet, but a magazine format intent on presenting biased view. YOU CANNOT HAVE IT ALL WAYS AT ONCE. Either Techdirt is a "plaform" for The Public or editor / publisher and liable for all comments.

That’s the crux of argument. Techdirt regards Section 230 as only conferring power without drawback, not requiring least responsibility or notice of common law fairness.

Techdirt chooses to be the publisher of ALL comments because asserts that it has full editorial control — even if not actually used for more than adding an editorial warning to some comments: I think that Masnick regards himself as "benevolent dictator", long suffering the unenlightened. (2 small points: Techdirt DOES remove some commercial spam. And someone could raise from the defamation case on repeating the comments, but wasn’t decided or overly apposite to this.)


Note: the "censoring" or "hiding" or "downvoting" or whatever call the discrimination against certain viewpoints causes me to break this up into three parts so what when censored as it SOON will be, the swathe of the added editorial comment, the lie that it’s too dangerous for the casual reader, helps point up that isn’t merely one instance of commercial spam. — Nor is it spam at all as the fanboys falsely claim. It’s just MY opinion, which the site APPEARS to solicit, and visibly doesn’t even have guidelines for, let alone reserve right to EDIT. Site and fanboys simply don’t want ANY other viewpoints here. "Gary" is right, Techdirt is not a "free speech" forum for discussion, but little walled garden promoting corporatism.

You might also note the meta-view: that Techdirt is trying to be both at once, but it’s not a workable plan so long as dissent can get in at all!

2nd note: it’d save a lot of time and space here if my comments were NOT censored! But since I’m forced to struggle for basic ability to comment here at all — forced to use TOR because Techdirt blocks my home IP address — then, that’s the battle.

This alleged "free speech" site could follow its own advice besides clear law and simply be FAIR.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: FUNNIEST is "Rich" admits Techdirt doesn't want "free speech"!

And now it is time to look at the habitat of what we like to call a “lunatic Soapman”.

This special breed goes by many names. The most prominent characteristic of this breed is a soapbox that is dragged to irrelevant places and used to shout about their own distorted version of reality.

The proper response to finding a “lunatic Soapman” is to yell at them to go away, as nobody wants them around. Sadly, this won’t do anything. The “lunatic Soapman” will simply keep yelling and will likely use intolerance toward them as ‘proof’ of their own distorted views.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: FUNNIEST is "Rich" admits Techdirt doesn't want "free speech"!

forced to use TOR because Techdirt blocks my home IP address

Ah, this old chestnut again.

Blue, you get blocked because by your own admission, you repeatedly make the same messages at least twenty times. Which by definition triggers the spam filter. That, and the fact that you use a tool you previously claimed was exclusively used by BitTorrent pirates, is on you.

I respond to this message to clarify to new readers – who do exist despite blue’s claims otherwise. What you see here is the equivalent of a perverted Peeping Tom who gets his jollies off by peeping through the window for the girls’ changing room, whooping and catcalling. And now he’s angry that the girls have made it a point to close the window and draw a curtain over it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: FUNNIEST is "Rich" admits Techdirt doesn't want "free speech"!

You see yourself as being attractive enough to encourage a “peeping Tom”?

You see yourself as a sexy young girl with boys “whooping and catcalling” when they see you?

That’s just crazy.

More likely you are an unwashed smelly disgusting sexually frustrated old man, hanging out with the other societal rejects here.

That I could believe.

Mark Andre Prisal says:

Re: FUNNIEST is "Rich" admits Techdirt doesn't want "free speech"!

There. Filled your Sunday void, indulge your passion for vile ad hominem and urge to censor with clicks, and thereby believe that you’ve answered substantive argument.

And yet I get no thanks! — Let alone recognition that your childish attacks harm the site.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: FUNNIEST is "Rich" admits Techdirt doesn't want "free speech"!

What Masnick did was ask (or beg, if that term pleases you more) for money and help to go against a significantly funded (but claimed to be devastated by Techdirt) opponent, who would gladly bankrupt the site given the chance.

A site is not a forum. Neither is a voting system that points out consistently abrasive individuals, who openly admit their only aim is to grief for a response, antithetical to the idea of free speech. Or Masnick could have sued blue boy to Hell and back.

This counterpoint you propose is not the gotcha you think it is. It’s barely a whimper.

Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile) says:

How sad it is...

…that so many comments recently belong to a category know as abusive, trolling, or spam, and the respondents to those comments. These entities (I believe there are more than one, style tells us who the repeat offenders are, and the difference) continue to do so because he/they get responses. While those responses may excoriate those posts, they also satisfy a significant need of the poster. Recognition! If only we could get the many responsible members of this community respond to instead flag and ignore, he/she/they may eventually go away due to lack of satisfaction. Maybe even the irresponsible members of this community.

Sure he/she/they push buttons. That’s what he/she/they does. He does so to spark ire. Responses insure that the intended ire spark was successful. Let your ire get sparked and deal with it with some primal screaming (at least until your neighbors complain), or something (don’t drink/use drugs it doesn’t help) but ignore this/these asshole(s).

The concept of feeding trolls is that they want recognition. Any response to he/she/it/them no matter what you say, no matter how reasonable, no matter how insightful, it constitutes recognition, and therefore feeds the ego of the asshole(s) who dirty up these pages.

PLEASE DON’T FEED THE TROLLS BY NOT RESPONDING TO THEM, FLAG AND IGNORE INSTEAD! Trying to educate him/her/them (which is not often but always ignored) satisfies their need for recognition. Don’t do it, and chastise those that do.

Daydream says:

Re: How sad it is...

How did the phrase ‘internet trolls’ come about anyway?
Acidic comments don’t stop them, flaming doesn’t stop them, shining light on their claims doesn’t stop them…they’re not very troll-ish at all.

Hmm…what’s a mythical creature that’s dumb, moronic, immature, and only goes away if you ignore it until it starves to death? Aside from small children?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: How sad it is...

Yes, I think this is wise advise. Not responding leaves insightful comments to stand on their own, and when you are as quiet as Church mice, you appear to have nothing to say in response to the insight.

Which you don’t, of course. Other than smearing shit on yourself and on the walls, you have nothing to say at all.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: How sad it is...

Perhaps some people, like Lindsey Graham, are actually interested in standing up for the truth.

The truth is that Techdirt is just another example of fake news and fake commentary.

Whether people respond or not, or whether comments are censored or not, makes no difference to people like Lindsey.

Publishing the truth is it’s own reward.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 How sad it is...

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=uGxr1VQ2dPI

Very telling.

Ford was Lying.

Kavanaugh was telling the Truth.

Graham was telling the Truth.

Trump has allies who tell the Truth in high places. There is a movement of Truth forming, despite fake news like CNN and MSNBC, and fake commentary like Techdirt.

Truth. God. Country. Family. SCOTUS. MAGA

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...