Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt

from the eavesdropping dept

This week, both our winners on the insightful side come in response to our post about Twitter banning the Krassensteins, despite the ongoing accusations of anti-conservative bias at the platform. In first place, it’s Stephen T. Stone responding to an old, tired, incoherent argument that banning people violates “common law”:

Maybe you can answer this question for once.

Let?s say Twitter admins announce tomorrow that Twitter will no longer host a specific type of content. The content is legal and people can post that content anywhere else. But Twitter admins say ?we don?t do that here? and ban that content from Twitter anyway.

What law, statute, or ?common law? court precedent says Twitter must host content its admins don?t want to host?

(Spoiler: they did not “answer this question for once”.)

In second place, we’ve got an anonymous comment pretty well summing up the situation:

It’s a bad time to be a popular internet platform.

You’re damned if you moderate any accounts (“censorship”).
You’re damned if you don’t moderate accounts.
You’re damned if you fail to moderate the correct accounts according to diametrically opposed opinions.

You’re just all-around damned.

For editor’s choice on the insightful side, we start out with a comment from any moose cow word in response to China’s latest move to use America’s IP obsession against it:

If IP was truly as invaluable as companies claim, they’d keep their manufacturing close to home where they can maintain the upmost control over it. Instead, they keep sending it to lowest bid manufacturers in countries that don’t care about their IP. They want cheap labor and tight IP control, but they can’t have their cake and eat it too. After decades of offshoring, it’s clear that they value cheap labor FAR more than their IP. Apparently it’s worth less to them than the paper a sweatshop laborer’s pay stub is printed on.

In second place, we’ve got a simple anonymous response to the German politician seeking to take action after a bunch of YouTubers told their fans not to vote for her party:

Would she have been as upset if someone saying vote for her party gained as many views on YouTube?

Over on the funny side, our first place winner is another anonymous response to the post about China:

China is stealing our ideas..

..about how to use the fake idea of “intellectual property”. Something must be done!

In second place it’s yet another anonymous commenter, this time on our post about the long copyright saga of Bittersweet Symphony and Richard Ashcroft, responding to a commenter who was “surprised they didn’t buy Ashcroft a dog and shoot it too”:

I think the police hold the copyright on that one…

For editor’s choice on the funny side, we’ve got a quick exchange from the post about the latest Twitter bans. First, Stephen T. Stone got somewhat confused:


This reads like Twitter moderates activity and not political beliefs. But that can?t be right. Alex Jones said he was targeted for his political beliefs. If we can?t believe him, who can we believe~?

But an anonymous commenter replied and cleared everything up nicely:

It proves his master plan is working. His agents have replaced the chemical in the airplane fumes from the one made with babies to one made with barbecue, so the frogs that Twitter moderators eat at dinnertime are no longer gay.

It’s the only logical explanation for this.

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
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Let me re-word the answer for you

No pro-LGBTQ+2 speech allowed.
"The content is legal and people can post that content anywhere else. But Twitter admins say “we don’t do that here” and ban that content from Twitter anyway."

IANAL. I would call it discrimination. What would you call it?

ECA (profile) says:

freedom of speach

Its interesting..
That the Corp idea that Everyone has to have their product, or they are loosing money..
Is the Same as idiots declaring They are being censored because 1 SMART person isnt listening to them.

the resource is there, the options are there…But do we see or find any of them?? not really.
They petition the rich and the corps, and forget about us, because WE DONT have the money.. They Arnt speaking to us. And thats the reason we dont See them saying anything, SMART..

they arnt Politicians…they are Capitalist, and other things I cant say in public.

Toom1275 (profile) says:

Just been rereading Popehat’s "Anatomy of a Scam Investigation" and now many of the tricks in the scammer’s toolkit seem pretty familiar:

  • sociopathy

  • never delivering on things asked of them, distracting and changing the subject when pressed

  • when called out too hard, pretending to be someone else

  • Stalking of and threats to take spurious legal action…

  • …against individuals and blogs that write or host truthful warnings against the scammer

  • make spurious takedown requests to review sites that victims report the scammer to

  • using bought-and-sold mailing lists of scam victims

  • Particular personal hate for anti-scammer people/places like Popehat & co.
Anonymous Coward says:

Looking at Techdirt’s History post for the week, I strongly suspect Jhon boi to be Michael L. Slonecker, the pro-RIAA lawyer who tutted his tongue at everything posted on the site until he learned that leaving his real name so people could mock him was a very bad idea.

[ Slonecker mocks the EFF for trying to counter RIAA propaganda.) He then loses it when his wife is briefly mentioned in passing.

Funny how a decade later he’s reduced to stalking Masnick’s wife instead.

These copyright-types were always another level of fucked up…

Mike Masnick (profile) says:

Re: Re:

I would… doubt that very much for a variety of reasons. As much trouble as he made on the site for a long time, he always seemed somewhat grounded in (a slightly confused, and old fashioned) reality (that one thread you link to is a bit of an exception). Also, he had a fairly distinct style, one I still see showing up in the comments from time to time that does not match the troll you are talking about in any way.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

For what it’s worth, here you see Slonecker and John Smith, posting as horse with no name, using different geolocation snowflakes.

One might argue that it’s not the first time Herrick has masked his IP address by posting from his phone, but Mike’s right. There’s enough differences between the two.

Then again, it’s some achievement when you’re insane enough to make Slonecker look grounded. For a laugh, look up "Slonecker" in the comments on Techdirt over the years. Comedy gold.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

I’m not who I’m accused of being, but will make sure to let him know about this post.

Your wife isn’t being stalked, but you already know that.

It seems I’m being censored on this site so I’ll have to table this until I go public with a lawyer in tow. Funny thing happens when one has a lawyer, people just stop bullying them.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Your wife isn’t being stalked, but you already know that.

Except for this little tidbit you posted here:

On another note, a man with Masnick’s money and status who had to settle for the low-value garbage he married is as pathetic as it gets. What’s her name again? Let me look it up.

Unless you’re going to gripe about getting fakeposted again after switching to another IP address.

Rocky says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

You aren’t censored.

You are free to make your "argument" since nothing here stops you from doing that but that doesn’t mean you can force others to see it who aren’t interested in it.

Funny how some people conflates free speech with the non-existing right to be heard no matter what, unless the speech has some relevance to Article 12 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child but I doubt we are talking about children even though some people behave like an entitled child with poor impulse control.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

You go Jhon boi! Let Slonecker know that he was compared to a rich content creator making amazing things for Hollywood, that’ll piss him off!

…Wait, how was this plan of yours supposed to work again? Never mind. Everybody knows you’ve been threatening subpoenas on this site for a year and could have Masnick’s ass on a platter if you snapped your finger, and the amount of shit that has actually gone down in that time has ranged between jack and fuck all.

To borrow a phrase from another Anonymous Coward, "Bring it on, you old, impotent fuckwit".

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

I am not that individual, and what you are saying about that individual is clearly false. Since you dragged that individual into this for no valid reason other than you WANTING to believe it was him, you seem to be the one fixated.

I am not stalking Masnick’s wife at all. I was "saying mean things" like everyone here likes to defend the right to do so. In this case, I believe the mean things are accurate because someone who is married to someone who allows bullying through his comments section is someone I’m not going to like.

You might want to check the legal definition of stalking. Ironicially, that definition has been met a great deal more by some individuals who have frequented this site.

I did notice some parallel construction here by someone looking to dance around a certain privacy law but I’m not sure that would hold water.

Rocky says:

Re: Re: Re:

Let me get this straight, you think Mike’s wife is a bad person because Mike doesn’t moderate people who say "mean things" about others in this comment section which you yourself use to say "mean things" about others and in this specific instance Mike’s wife.

Perhaps if you think it’s such a bad thing you shouldn’t contribute to it then, because your statement just shows us how hypocritical you really are.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

You might want to check the legal definition of stalking. Ironicially, that definition has been met a great deal more by some individuals who have frequented this site.

Ummm… You might want to do the same, as I somehow believe that stalking requires actual knowledge of the person that is being stalked. Since you are always an AC, how can it be considered that anybody here is stalking you?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Damned If They Moderate, Damned If They Don’t?

Because they’re not actually doing anything wrong, at least with regard to moderation. They’re both crucified and venerated for the same activity which has, by outside forces, been politicized and made a partisan issue, amplifying the effect. The companies themselves are still doing what they’ve always done and have always had the right to do, and rightfully so.

First they came for the social media platforms…

Anonymous Coward says:

Damned if they do, damned if they don't?

I see that you’re all still mocking conservatives for being upset about censorship.

I mean, if you’re all okay with corporations deciding who does and who doesn’t get to speak online, that’s fine.

Just know that data proves that censorship IS going against conservatives. In 22-25 high profile censorship cases on Facebook, all but one were on the right.

Perhaps you guys should watch Tim Pool? Timcast or Tim Pool, he has two channels on Youtube. He talks about this stuff constantly.

In fact!

AND he even mentions "I do not want to live under the heel of mega corporations who aren’t loyal to this country"

And just so you know, he’s NOT a conservative.

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...