The Pai FCC Is Oddly Quiet About Trump's Plan To Have The Agency Police Speech
from the selective-silence dept
So last week, you probably saw the leaked plan by the Trump administration to try and “fix” the nonexistent censorship of Conservatives on social media. According to the leak, a large part of the plan would involve having the FCC, which has no real authority in this area, police speech on platforms like Twitter and Facebook. Most legal experts I’ve spoken to say the plan is illegal and utterly nonsensical, and the FCC has no authority to do this under Section 230 or anywhere else. The order would also undermine most of the logic the Pai FCC used in its effort to repeal net neutrality.
Oddly though, an FCC that has been very vocal on this subject when convenient has been oddly mute since the story broke, with none of the agency’s three Republican Commissioners (Ajit Pai, Brendan Carr, or Mike O’Rielly) making so much as a peep about the terribleness of the latest Trump “plan.”
This kind of silence is uncharacteristic. O’Rielly, for example, was positively apoplectic recently when he proclaimed (falsely) that community broadband posed a dire threat to free speech. Carr has similarly expressed great disdain previously at the idea of government regulating speech on social media platforms, and hyperventilates over telecom sector free speech rights any time someone even faintly suggests giants like Comcast should be held accountable for decades of abysmal service:
The First Amendment operates as a restraint on the government. Disappointed that my Democrat FCC colleagues now invoke it as a basis for infringing the free speech rights of entities we regulate.
— Brendan Carr (@BrendanCarrFCC) June 6, 2019
Then there’s Pai, who attacked net neutrality extensively by insisting it was the equivalent of the Fairness Doctrine, the exact type of solution Trump is now proposing for social media. Pai has routinely tried to play both sides of this debate, insisting he’s a stalwart defender of free speech, yet demonizing platforms like Twitter for nonexistent censorship when it makes for a good sound byte. He’s also repeatedly stated we can’t possibly hold bumbling monopolies like AT&T and Comcast accountable on the state or federal level because it would violate their First Amendment rights (a belief those companies share).
All of this endless hand wringing over free speech, and yet when the President of the United States says he wants to use the FCC to police speech on social media (again with near zero authority to do so), all three of these free speech patriots are suddenly quiet.
And while you could argue that they didn’t comment because the plan hasn’t been made official yet, that didn’t stop them from loudly deriding a similarly undercooked, leaked plan by the Trump administration to nationalize the nation’s 5G networks. That plan was largely just the lobbyist brain fart of a Peter Thiel-backed company named Rivada Networks (supported by folks like Karl Rove and Newt Gingrich), yet Carr, O’Rielly, and Pai all had plenty to say about the unworkability of that plan (largely because such a plan is AT&T and Verizon’s worst nightmare).
The trio’s fellow commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel offered up what was probably the most concise reaction to having the FCC police Facebook and Twitter:
What. https://t.co/wLFD0aQHJf
— Jessica Rosenworcel (@JRosenworcel) August 9, 2019
As many have surmised this could all amount to a giant hill of bupkis. The administration may have just been floating a trial balloon that has now, clearly, popped. After all, in the Trump era you can never tell what’s serious policy and what’s the passing brain fart of whoever has the President’s ear at one particular moment.
Still, you’d think a trio of FCC Commissioners who proclaim to be champions of free speech would have had something to say about the plan given the scale of its stupidity. Yet they’ve refused to issue any comment whatsoever after more than a week. It’s almost as if they’re not actually being ideologically consistent, and are remaining mute simply out of blind partisan allegiance and support of Trump’s clearly idiotic plan to blame social media for the fact that many people just can’t stop being grifting assholes on the internet.
And while there’s certainly plenty of very real problems with Facebook and Google (especially on the privacy front), it’s been kind of overlooked in tech policy circles that a lot of the animosity in DC toward “big tech” right now originates with telecom giants eager to elbow in on Silicon Valley online ad revenues. It is, as they say, always about the money.
Filed Under: 1st amendment, administrative law, ajit pai, anti-conservative bias, bias, brendan carr, donald trump, executive order, fcc, free speech, michael o'rielly, policing speech, social media
Companies: facebook, google
Comments on “The Pai FCC Is Oddly Quiet About Trump's Plan To Have The Agency Police Speech”
As is Techdirt...
about the Google document cache that a Google engineer dropped at Project Veritas. It clearly shows how badly biased Google is. In addition, it also shows that Google executives have been lying to Congress several times about not having blacklist that block certain political views.
Re: As is Techdirt...
"It clearly shows how badly biased Google is’
Not until a source not known for making shit up covers the story.
Re: Re: As is Techdirt...
The document cache speaks for itself. It’s very unlikely that all 950 pages of it have been made up.
There’s also a Google high-level executive admitting to political bias in a undercover video. It is impossible to spin it other way, as it is what it is.
There’s also even earlier leaked video where high level Google executives are literally crying because of Trump win. It’s again very highly unlikely that people as such are capable of keeping their views neutral in product development.
There’s a great concept that liberals so much love – unconscious bias. If this is concept is true in cases of racial or gender matters, it must be equally true in cases of political views. So if this concept is true, then it is very likely that majority of Google employees have unconscious bias in case of Trump and this effects their behavior, including product development decisions.
Where’s smoke, there’s usually fire, as the saying goes.
Re: Re: Re: As is Techdirt...
As I posted down-thread:
The source is tainted by past actions of falsifying and altering interviews to change the meaning of what has been said.
The insider in question has publicly aired his belief in conspiracy theories that have no evidence to support them, and which exist largely on the racist beliefs of those who buy into the fabricated narratives.
Please advise why we should believe either Veritas (known to be lacking in Veritas) or Vorhies (demonstrably lacking in credibility).
Re: Re: Re:2 As is Techdirt...
There’s literally a cache of Google company documents, 950 pages of them, that you can download yourself and read.
And if it’s true, that the same cache was sent to DOJ, then I highly doubt that they are all made up.
Re: Re: Re:3 As is Techdirt...
This does not answer my question. Why should Project Veritas or Vorhies be trusted?
Re: Re: Re:4 As is Techdirt...
Let me rephrase – given the lack of trustworthiness of the sources, why should I bother combing through the document cache for the evidence they claim is there?
How do I know that the document cache isn’t compromised? Even if actual Google documents are included, the history of the source indicates that they may have altered documents within. It also indicates the the documents likely do not indicate what they claim it indicates.
What in any of this lends credence to their claims?
Re: Re: Re:4 As is Techdirt...
Because at the moment there’s no reason not to trust them.
I’m sure, if the documents have been falsified, then soon enough Google will come out and say so. They will most likely be questioned in Congress again under oath, and again, if the documents are fake, they will state so.
But at the moment, the documents fit perfectly with what we know already for sure.
And no, it’s not confirmation bias, it’s perfectly reasonable approach to theory development.
Re: Re: Re:5 As is Techdirt...
With their history, there’s no reason to trust them.
Re: Re: Re:5 As is Techdirt...
The existing history of Project Veritas, and their willingness to falsify information by taking accurate information and place it out of context or in a completely false context to force radically incorrect conclusions is well known. I have every reason to expect that even if the 950 pages are accurate they are presented in a way as to force a conclusion that is not accurate.
Re: Re: Re:5 As is Techdirt...
Because at the moment there’s no reason not to trust them.
Given Veritas’ history of falsification and deception, and the past actions of their source, there is every reason not to trust them. What I am asking you for are reasons to, in fact, trust them, given their history. Please advise why we should trust them in this instance.
I’m sure, if the documents have been falsified, then soon enough Google will come out and say so. They will most likely be questioned in Congress again under oath, and again, if the documents are fake, they will state so.
And why should we, in the interim, believe anything being claimed, given the lack of trustworthiness of the source?
But at the moment, the documents fit perfectly with what we know already for sure.
This has not been evidenced. What do we already know? What are these pre-existing assumptions based on? What I know is that anti-conservative bias is being touted as existing where it doesn’t, and no one is willing to define what is meant by "conservative" or provide evidence from trustworthy sources that there is an pattern of unequal moderation tactics.
What exactly do these documents show? Where do they fit, and what exactly is it that they fit into?
And no, it’s not confirmation bias, it’s perfectly reasonable approach to theory development.
Please advise what exactly is being confirmed, and the details of the pre-existing theory. Please advise what exactly the pre-existing theory is based on, other than these documents.
If the existing theory is unsound, then … no, this is all confirmation bias.
Re: Re: Re:6 As is Techdirt...
Because thinking does not work like you are probably imagining.
I’m fully aware what their past is. And no, not everything they have been done have been falsified or lie.
This is literally an intellectual fallacy you fall for. It’s an equivalent of ad hominem or shooting the messenger. The document cache is out there in public for anyone to scrutinize as is the Google engineer. One can take an objective, so called, God’s point of view, that takes into account the past history of Project Veritas. There’s reason to be cautious, but so far there’s nothing there that would indicate that they are lying. The document cache has plenty of information that is in accordance of what we knew or suspected in the past.
I’ll give you an example. It’s quite evident that Google manipulates search to push their own political agenda. It’s obvious when you image search for "white family" or "epstein clinton". In the first case, you get mostly black people and mixed race family pictures. In the second, first pictures are of Trump and Epstein, even though it is well known that Trumps connections to Epstein was very superficially and from a decades ago while Clinton’s were close to him even after all the pedo stuff. This is literally manipulating political opinion. In every other search engine you get the results that you expect.
Now, from the leaked documents know that this is called "algorithmic fairness" in Google speak. There’s literally stated in the docs that even though true facts in reality might speaks otherwise, Google should manipulate the search in order to push their own political agenda.
Re: Re: Re:7 As is Techdirt...
"It’s an equivalent of ad hominem or shooting the messenger."
No, it’s called reputation, If you have a reputation as a liar, then people do not take what you say at face value.
"The document cache is out there in public for anyone to scrutinize as is the Google engineer"
Good. Then, when someone reputable has examined it and come to the same conclusion, and (unlike you or Veritas) is able to detail the major incriminating evidence within those documents then the rest of us will take it more seriously and congratulate Veritas on doing something positive.
"It’s obvious when you image search for "white family".. In the first case, you get mostly black people and mixed race family pictures. "
OK, you see this is where you stop being reasonable and start being a conspiracy-minded fool.
Yes, this is true. But, the reason is simple – the word "white" has many definitions, only one of them being race. The reason for the results is clear. On my results, the first photo is for a company called "white family dental" in Utah. The second is a black family, but the headline says "blue and white family", referring to the uniform they wear for charity work. The third is "african american family isolated on white background", which is the description of the photo on a stock photo site. The fourth is of a white family, but the 5th is a mixed race family on a YouTube video entitled "black or white – family first".
Do you see the pattern here? If not – Google is returning content based on the NAME of the image, not the CONTENT of the image. There’s no politics involved here, just an algorithm that’s trying its best to parse a potentially ambiguous search (as the algorithm doesn’t know which definition of "white" you’re using so returns based on all of them). It’s only your racist ass who’s seeing a problem.
"In the second, first pictures are of Trump and Epstein"
Which is similarly explained if you read the headlines of the articles that the images are from. No conspiracy here, just a bunch of recent articles that mention about all 3 men but whose most prominent images feature the current president.
There’s no agenda unless you’re looking for one, and there’s no search result that can’t be claimed to be a conspiracy if you’re desperate enough.
Re: Re: Re:8 As is Techdirt...
That’s the problem. It takes 5 seconds to refute what you are saying by using any other search engine than Google. There is a undeniable consistency in other search engines on these search terms. Moreover, you again, like pretty much in all your responses, have conveniently ignored, that this very same matter is addressed in the leaked docs where google engineers are discussing how to manipulate search results.
Re: Re: Re:9 As is Techdirt...
"It takes 5 seconds to refute what you are saying by using any other search engine than Google."
So, you don’t know what "refute" means. The fact that Target lays out its store different to the way Wal Mart does is not a refutation of me saying there’s no racist conspiracy involved in Wal Mart’s layout.
"There is a undeniable consistency in other search engines on these search terms"
Yes there is. they all use different proprietary algorithms, and there’s a huge number of factors involved in indexing that each will weight differently. So?
"Moreover, you again, like pretty much in all your responses, have conveniently ignored, that this very same matter is addressed in the leaked docs "
I’m sure it is, but I’m waiting until they have been verified as not being works of fiction before I read any of them, especially as you resolutely refuse to link to the specifics. Again – have you even read them yourself, or are you just parroting known liars?
Re: Re: Re:10 As is Techdirt..
I’m sure it is, but I’m waiting until they have been verified as not being works of fiction before I read any of them, especially as you resolutely refuse to link to the specifics. Again – have you even read them yourself, or are you just parroting known liars?
This is the part you aren’t getting, Warguy. Veritas are known to be liars. Vorhies is known to believe in unfounded conspiracy theories.
Given this, there is no reason to believe that the cache shows what they say it does, nor is there reason to believe that documents that support their claims were not falsified by them.
There’s an old-ass fable about this. "The boy who cried wolf." You know what the fable is meant to teach? Don’t lie, because if you are known to be a liar, no one will believe you when you try to tell the truth.
I’m also waiting on the following:
What do we already know? What are the pre-existing assumptions based on? Remember that if the existing theory is based on nothing, then this new thing (sourced as it is from known liars) is confirming what you want to be true, not what you know to be true.
What exactly do these documents show? Where do they fit, and what exactly is it that they fit into?
The documents do not speak for themselves. They speak in context, and the context says they are sourced from bullshitters. If you want people to think they aren’t bullshit, you’re going to have to explain, in great detail, why they aren’t bullshit.
I look forward to your detailed write-up.
Re: Re: Re:11 As is Techdi
Also: "If someone has a history of lying, don’t appoint/keep them in a position where you’ll need to trust what they say."
Like, seriously, why was that kid allowed to return to watching the sheep after the first false alarm, let alone the second?
Re: Re: Re:7 As is Techdirt...
Yes, this is a rare, properly labelled instance of an ad hominem attack on an argument.
That said, an ad hominem attack isn’t necessarily fallacious.
From the Wikipedia article:
Veritas is, indeed, making a statement of fact, and, thus, their credibility is open to question. And, with credibility as tarnished as theirs were, it’s not fallacious to discard their entire argument, because their argument depends on the listener accepting the facts that they are presenting as legitimate. And we have no reason to accept the legitimacy of those facts.
Re: Re: Re:7 As is Techdirt...
[Warguy offers no facts in his Complaint to support this proposition.]
Re: Re: Re:5 As is Techdirt...
"Because at the moment there’s no reason not to trust them."
Apart from the source’s long documented history of being untrustworthy.
Re: Re: Re:3 As is Techdirt...
"There’s literally a cache of Google company documents, 950 pages of them, that you can download yourself and read."
Stephen King’s The Stand is much longer than that! That doesn’t mean there’s any evidence of anything in the real world in there.
Just as it’s unlikely that every page was falsified, it’s unlikely that every page is relevant to the claims being made. Why don’t you point out the most pertinent pages? You (have read them yourself, haven’t you?
Re: Re: Re:3 As is Techdirt...
“There’s literally a cache of Google company documents, 950 pages of them, that you can download yourself and read.”
That you obviously haven’t.
Re: Re: Re:3 As is Techdirt...
“There is literally a cache of google documents company documents”
Nice the one guy at Veritas that knew how to use Microsoft word was actually useful for once.
Dude let it go. Your boo does hit jobs for political reasons. It’s an activist hub who’s offices would make a dues ex protagonist #### himself in the amount of things that go on there. I know how it works. I have seen how it works all around. So just stop.
Re: Re: Re:4 As is Techdirt...
"Nice the one guy at Veritas that knew how to use Microsoft word was actually useful for once."
It wouldn’t surprise me if someone reputable actually decides to look at this stuff and sees that they left the metadata in the file to show what they edited before publication.
Re: Re: Re:5 As is Techdirt...
Like how the Russia’s hackers had been caught salting things like the WADA and DNC docs with faked content for damaging intent.
Re: Re: Re: As is Techdirt...
Race and gender are protected classes. Political leaning is not.
We are all politically biased and, necessarily, so are the companies we work for. There is nothing illegal or even "wrong" about that. In fact, it is enshrined in the Constitution and revered by our founders.
Google’s bias is 100% irrelevant. They are entitled to their political bias and to whatever manifests as a result. This entire episode is nothing more than a chain of tantrums from intellectual children used as smoke and mirrors to shunt attention away from all the shady crap they’re up to.
Re: Re: Re:2 As is Techdirt...
Nope, you are plain out wrong.
But I guess, then it’s also for Russian government to influence US election outcome? Because from the perspective of democratic process it does not matter weather it’s Google or Russian government. This has important repercussions on the future of elections and outcomes of political process.
Re: Re: Re:3 As is Techdirt...
"Race and gender are protected classes. Political leaning is not."
The above is not wrong.
Re: Re: Re:3
Plaintiff argues that political affiliation/ideology is a protected class. But Plaintiff offers no facts in their Complaint to support this proposition. Their argument is summarily dismissed.
Re: Re: Re: As is Techdirt...
"The document cache speaks for itself. It’s very unlikely that all 950 pages of it have been made up."
They don’t need to fake the whole thing, they only need to fake or misrepresent certain parts. You know, like they have a verified track record of doing with video footage and other "evidence".
"There’s also even earlier leaked video where high level Google executives are literally crying because of Trump win"
Yes, a lot of people were upset by that travesty. That doesn’t prove anything in terms of operations.
"very likely that majority of Google employees have unconscious bias"
You’ve got to love it. You can’t prove any actual wrongdoing, so now they must be doing it without realising it? That’s especially hilarious since there’s so many right-leaning sites that openly block and censor opposing views without a peep from you people.
"Where’s smoke, there’s usually fire, as the saying goes."
Not always, and nobody’s actually seen the smoke first hand. All we have appears to be some known liars amplifying the claims of ex-employees with a grudge. We need more than that.
Re: Re: Re:2 As is Techdirt...
The theory of unconscious bias is so much loved by liberals. Google even have regular training for their employees to overcome it as far as gender and minority matters are concerned.
It’s funny, isn’t it, how this theory seems suspicious when it is applied to issues that feel uncomfortable to you? Suddenly it does not seem that great theory at all.
Re: Re: Re:3 As is Techdirt...
Are you claiming to be bias free?
Re: Re: Re:4 As is Techdirt...
He appears to be claiming that any action is fine so long as he can point to a random "liberal" that did something similar. That seems to be a common thing with these guys – no need to examine your own motivations or defend your own actions so long as some strawman on the other "side" did something.
Re: Re: Re:4 As is Techdirt...
From the responses here, I can conclude that obviously more bias free than majority of people here. That’s probably because when and where I went to school and later did my degrees, there was still an ideal of objectivity. Taking a "God’s point of view" (which also includes reflecting on your own possible bias) is something that majority of people these days are completely incapable doing. Most likely because of low levels of reading.
There’s been tow types of responses here:
Project Veritas is not reputable and the Google engineer believed in conspiracy theories so all the materials must be false. And that Google has a right to be biased and manipulate political process. The latter is especially funny as these are probably the same people that have so far been arguing that there is no bias.
Literally none of the real issues have been addressed yet.
What’s even worse, is that my posts have been flagged. A clear example of liberal reaction when triggered that I have seen again and again in places like Techdirt. And no, before anyone says that, it’s not because they are false or poorly argumented. To suggest that would be to display a staggering lack of intellectual honesty. Unfortunately something liberals are well known for, especially the younger emotion over facts types.
Re: Re: Re:5 As is Techdirt...
"Project Veritas is not reputable and the Google engineer believed in conspiracy theories so all the materials must be false"
Not necessarily. However, it requires a higher burden of proof than "here’s a cache of documents from known liars, but I won’t provide links to the specific pages that prove what I’m saying".
"Literally none of the real issues have been addressed yet."
No, they haven’t. So far, the issue seems to be a gullible fool insisting that his cache of documents of known liars is the unvarnished truth, but nothing to back it up other than "read it". Someone with real proof would at least be able to link to a specific document or abstract from an independent source.
Have you even read it yourself, or are you just parroting what known liars have told you to think about it?.
"A clear example of liberal reaction when triggered that I have seen again and again in places like Techdirt"
If you think that’s bad, wait till you see the banning and deletion of posts that happens on "conservative" sites!
Re: Re: Re:5 As is Techdirt...
"I can conclude that obviously more bias free than majority of people"
Obviously … not.
Sitting upon that high horse, what’s the weather like?
Re: Re: Re:5
Yes, this is true.
This is also true.
Flag on the play: False conclusion based on faulty logic. Nobody is saying “all the materials” are false. (Hell, they could all be legit.) What lots of people (including myself) are saying is that Project Veritas and the leaker both lack credibility. Their lack of credibility taints both the materials and any conclusions drawn from them.
Anyone who wants to believe what Project Veritas says without hesitation can do so. But that kind of blind allegiance puts their own credibility at risk.
As a privately-owned corporation, yes, Google can be as biased as it wants. The same goes for Google employees.
Show me where Google — not people outside of Google who manipulated its systems for their own ends, but Google employees and executives themselves — directly and knowingly “manipulated” any “political process”.
Re: Re: Re:3 As is Techdirt...
"The theory of unconscious bias is so much loved by liberals:"
Is it really? Yawn…
Do you have any actual argument, or is it only "I’m told that liberals like something and I’m too stupid to understand more than 2 possible positions"
You’re not even addressing the questions, you’re just going "my strawman version of you likes something so whatever I do is also acceptable"
Re: Re: Re:2 As is Techdirt...
"Where’s smoke, there’s usually Veritas with a smoke machine and fan", as the saying goes.
Re: Re: Re: As is Techdirt...
“Where’s smoke, there’s usually fire, as the saying goes.”
But enough about the conmen working for Project Veritas.
Re: Re: Re: As is Techdirt...
“Where there is smoke there is usually fire”
The majority of fire alarm activations are false alarms.
I once pissed off a guy so hard by saying that.
Re: As is Techdirt...
Trying to use Project Veritas is laughable.
Re: Re: As is Techdirt...
It is what it is. So far they have done pretty decent work regarding Google. I haven’t seen nobody discredit them yet on the issue. Rather we have had complete silence from mainstream media and magazines like Ars Technica and Techdirt. This is a good indicator that they have come upon an uncomfortable truth.
Re: Re: Re: As is Techdirt...
No, they have just be discredited on every other issue due to falsification of evidence. We can not expect that this time is the one time they haven’t altered or outright falsified their evidence. Such an assumption flies in the face of over a decade of history.
Re: Re: Re:2 As is Techdirt...
Such an assumption flies in the face of over a decade of history.
Individuals are smart and have a problem accepting that a company who says they will provide X (lets say Unlimited wireless access) and then turns around and actually provides Y (a plan with a very ‘limited’ definition of "unlimited" if you tie your phone to a tree with a string type plan), can be trusted of anything.
On the other hand, people as a group are stupid (like Congress, there’s a reason it’s the opposite of Progress), and seem to be willing to accept that "mergers are good, THIS TIME" everytime, even when history shows that they have NEVER been good for the public (and there’s the key, they are GREAT for the politicians recieving the bribes from the companies who are merging).
So why can’t individuals be more like congress and just accept everything the Corporations tell us plebes as the 100% accurate gospel truth, I mean they have no incentives to deceive the majority of the public now do they (while they give away our rights to the ‘blue line’ and corporate lobbiests).
Re: Re: Re: As is Techdirt...
Please advise why anything Project Veritas puts out should be trusted, given its history of deception.
Please advise why anything Vorhies provide should be trusted, given his visible history of conspiracy theorizing.
What makes these sources trustworthy?
Re: Re: Re: As is Techdirt...
Who cares if Google is politically biased? There’s nothing wrong with political bias (if there was then you yourself would be in the wrong). You’re basing your whole argument on the equivalent of "but water is wet!". It’s childish.
Re: Re: Re:2 As is Techdirt...
It is not!
It is literally the same issue weather Russian or any other foreign government influences elections. We do not want a big monopoly company like Google to be the arbiter of political outcomes.
Moreover, they have denied their political bias in front of Congress, which means that they have been blatantly lying to the government and the public.
Re: Re: Re:3 As is Techdirt...
"It is not!"
Yes, it is childish.
Re: Re: Re:3
And who do you want to be the arbiter of political outcomes, Fox News?
Re: Re: Re:3 As is Techdirt...
It is literally the same issue weather Russian or any other foreign government influences elections
I don’t think the rain in Spain or the Russian plain is going to affect the voters of Maine.
Re: Re: Re:3 As is Techdirt...
A childish response if ever there was one.
What does the weather in Russia have to do with anything?
Foreign government vs US private company. Hm, wonder if that could be part of why there’s a difference there. One has a right to voice their opinions on US elections, and the other does not.
As far as I know Google did not hack any voting machines or force the electoral college to ignore state election outcomes and vote differently, nor am I aware that Google has forced anyone to vote contrary to how those individuals wanted to vote. Explain to me how you think Google is the "arbiter" of anything.
Innocent man declares innocence. Shocking. Seriously, what?
That does not follow. If I declare I am a white male, does that automatically mean I’m lying? (Note, I AM a white male)
Re: Re: Re: As is Techdirt...
"[You] haven’t seen nobody discredit them on this issue"? Your typos are more honest than you.
Re: Re: Re: As is Techdirt...
It is what it is.
And it is stuff coming from an untrustworthy douche.
Rather we have had complete silence from mainstream media and magazines like Ars Technica and Techdirt.
If the mainstream media is just a bunch of liars anyways, why would this matter to you?
Re: Re: Re: As is Techdirt...
That could be because they are ignoring the story, or much more likely there is no story there other than the raving of conspiracy theorists.
Re: Re: Re: Welcome to the Thunderdome bro
“I haven’t seen nobody discredit them yet on the issue.”
And you likely won’t given that you’re either paid to be stupid or do it for free. But hey if you want to get your ass handed to you nine different ways by people who are nicer, smarter, more eloquent, and honestly, probably more handsome. You’ve come to the right place bro.
Re: Re: Re: As is Techdirt...
"I haven’t seen nobody discredit them yet on the issue."
Your double negative suggests you secretly know they have no credibility.
"mainstream media and magazines like Ars Technica and Techdirt"
Techdirt is mainstream media? Do you have any criteria for that classification, or is it just "people who tell the truth about the people who lie to me"?
Re: As is Techdirt...
The source is tainted by past actions of falsifying and altering interviews to change the meaning of what has been said.
The insider in question has publicly aired his belief in conspiracy theories that have no evidence to support them, and which exist largely on the racist beliefs of those who buy into the fabricated narratives.
Please advise why we should believe either Veritas (known to be lacking in Veritas) or Vorhies (demonstrably lacking in credibility).
Re: Re: As is Techdirt...
The document cache is pretty telling and it fits well with broader context and things we already know or have been suspecting. It’s another piece of puzzle that fits in place.
It’s becoming Googles Snowden moment.
Re: Re: Re: As is Techdirt...
Your continued assertions that well yes they have falsified evidence for every single big investigation they have done in the past but seriously guys these documents aren’t false rings hallow.
Re: Re: Re: As is Techdirt...
This does not answer the question. The document cache is sourced from unreliable individuals and organizations. That it fits well with a broader fabricated context and things you have been suspecting only speaks to confirmation bias and a lack of critical thinking regarding the veracity of the claims.
Why should anything here be trusted?
Re: Re: As is Techdirt...
"tainted by past actions" is a rather tame way to phrase "100% of their output is whole-cloth lies."
Re: As is Techdirt...
hahahahaha. Oh wait… You’re serious…
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Re: Re: As is Techdirt...
Don’t be such a condescending d1ck. I’m fully aware what they are. But there’s no denying that they have done a pretty good job on the Google matter.
The embarrassing silence of liberal leaning tech press is a pretty good indicator that they are on to something.
Re: Re: Re: As is Techdirt...
[Asserts facts not in evidence]
Re: Re: Re: As is Techdirt...
How can someone be "embarrassed" by not commenting on the completely irrelevant?
Re: Re: Re: As is Techdirt...
If you are fully aware of what they are, you should realize that they have not been shown to be doing a pretty good job of anything, much less the Google matter.
Their source is highly questionable, if not outright laughable: https://www.thedailybeast.com/james-okeefes-google-whistleblower-loves-qanon-accused-zionists-of-running-the-government
Why should anything this organization or their source says be trusted?
Re: Re: Re: As is Techdirt...
But there’s no denying that they have done a pretty good job on the Google matter.
It’s a witch hunt!
WITCH HUNT! NO COLLUSION!
NO BIAS!
NO COLLUSION!
WITCH HUNT!
Re: Re: Re: HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!1!!!
“Don’t be such a condescending d1ck.”
I’m sorry let me 1augh even harder!
Re: Re: Re: As is Techdirt...
That’s pretty rich coming from you.
If you know that they regularly lie, falsify videos, documents, etc…, then why are you so quick to blindly trust that they haven’t done so with this current dump?
Oh there’s plenty of denying it. In fact multiple articles have pointed out their blatant lies and edited videos. How have you missed this?
The lack of action is not proof of a conspiracy. Most conspiracy theories generally don’t get national news attention because, well, they’re stupid and not worth reporting on. That same logic could be applied to the flat earth theory.
Also, the "liberal leaning tech press" has decidedly NOT been silent on Project Veritas’ claims about Google up to this point. They have regularly and ruthlessly debunked them.
Re: As is Techdirt...
As is Warguy… about most everything posted. Warguy posts clearly show how badly biased Warguy is.
Why do you think Google is not allowed to be biased in whatever way they so please so long as they do not discriminate as defined in amendments 5 & 14, the Equal Pay Act, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, … and others.
You think political affiliation is a protected class? Where is this found within the us government documentation?
Re: As is Techdirt...
Do you get pod to be this stupid? Or do you do it for free?
Re: Re: As is Techdirt...
Paid* goddamnit
Re: Re: Re: As is Techdirt...
They get paid in Tide Pods. Which, in turn, explains how they can so convincingly be that stupid.
Re: As is Techdirt...
It clearly shows how badly biased Google is.
Having wasted a good portion of my afternoon going through the documents: it does no such thing, and anyone arguing it shows "how badly biased Google is" is a complete and utter idiot who should maybe go back to elementary school for remedial education.
Re: Re: As is Techdirt...
Total ignorance about how this ‘evidence’ thing actually works seems to be a running theme with these folks.
"Evidence of anti-Conservative bias!"
"Alt-Left ANTIFA BLM SJW BBQ NPC TDS violence!"
"Exonerated!"
"But the Steele dossier!"
"Global warming is a hoax!"
"Build the wall!"
"Socialism!"
"Russia dindu nuffin!"
"Trump didn’t say that!"
"Projecting Falsitas says that…"
Re: Re: As is Techdirt...
Good on you for doing that Mike, I’m sure I couldn’t have brought myself to jump in without further proof. At the very least I’d need "here’s some links to the parts that are believed to be incriminating", and not just the "here’s 950+ pages read them all yourself" that we’ve been getting. The former is the demand of someone with real proof, the latter is a wild goose chase from people who need to spread FUD rather than apply specific charges.
Re: Re: Re: As is Techdirt...
It’s a red flag when someone dumps a big sheaf of documents down and goes "It’s all in here!" and won’t tell you where in here it is.
Re: Re: Re:2 As is Techdirt...
See also:
"NN is bad because it’s a 400-page law!"
Re: Re: As is Techdirt...
Damn, you have my sympathy, that had to have been a royal pain.
Re: Re: Re: As is Techdirt...
Damn, you have my sympathy, that had to have been a royal pain.
Wait until you see the post about it next week…
Re: Re: Re:2 As is Techdirt...
Yeah, saw it in the crystal ball, and I’m sure the article and comment section will be quite interesting reads.
As of now, I think that draft is just Trump trying to scare Big Tech companies into changing their business practices which is still a bad idea.
The Pai FCC Is Oddly Quiet About Trump’s Plan To Have The Agency Police Speech
Well, even Ajit Pai knows you don’t talk with your mouth full.
Re: Re:
In that case, I dearly hope Trump forgets to let him come up for air.
Partisan hacks do partisan things and techdirt is surprised because…the Republican is redeemable?
Since when does the law or lack of authority concern this administration?
Apparently the GOP wants the FCC to shift its focus from its mandate of regulating telecom monopolies to its other mandate–regulating those seven words and wardrobe malfunctions.
I have fun
with people Who live by the bible.
And express my opinion of the Old testament being from the Jewish religion(They get nervous)
Then that the New testament, found long ago, translated Many times, and still not fully translated, given to everyone after the late 1400’s early 1500’s.
Then ask them How we lived before the new testament..
And how many times its been Re-translated into over 20 versions. And WHO wrote which books.. King James had it re-written because the Protestants and Catholics werent getting along. and STILL dont. religious wars over the Same concepts?
Re: I have fun
And express my opinion of the Old testament being from the Jewish religion(They get nervous)
That’s just fact.
Then that the New testament, found long ago, translated Many times, and still not fully translated, given to everyone after the late 1400’s early 1500’s.
Citation needed. Oldest extant copies are apparently dated to the 2nd century. – this isn’t hard to look up.
Then ask them How we lived before the new testament..
Read the Old Testament.
And how many times its been Re-translated into over 20 versions. And WHO wrote which books.. King James had it re-written because the Protestants and Catholics werent getting along. and STILL dont. religious wars over the Same concepts?
Retranslations occur frequently, but translators refer back to the original texts in Hebrew and Greek and go through rigorous processes to avoid errors. Translation teams also cross-reference each others work to, again, avoid error. This is an extremely exacting process that takes years to go through – you need to have university degrees to engage in it. New translations are most commonly created to ensure that current-era language is being used. The KJV Bible is in language that current to the period in which it was written, which is why it sounds so odd to the current ear.
Additionally… what does this have to do with the article’s topic?
Re: Re: I have fun
Thanks, AC. There’s also the Qumran scrolls to consider (which proved the texts and translations to be correct).
Shut up, ECA, or we’ll have fun with you.
Re: Re: Re: I have fun
Forgot to type in the name, apparently. My mom is in the job of Bible translation. Something like 40 years of work ensuring accurate translation into a complicated language local to Cote d’Ivoire, so that there is close to my heart and experience.
Re: Re: I have fun
I like that such care is taken today on new/re translations but my bigger concern is how well the original source material was maintained and transcribed between scribes before people stated a specific edition was going to be used as the defacto original. Its not like we had digital signatures back then to ensure the original words and letters are the exact same as what was originally written.
Despite that uncertainty, I still believe the bible (as it currently is translated) contains lots of very important teachings. The real problem is people taking the less clear parts or things out of context and trying to justify their own bad actions based on that false interpretation. Like the crusades, slavery, discrimination, etc.
Re: Re: Re: I have fun
The Masoretic text has been shown to be word-for-word accurate to a fragment of Leviticus dating back ~1700 years.
That said: apparently, there wasn’t only one Biblical text back then (even within the Dead Sea Scrolls, there is variation of the same books between different scrolls).
So there probably isn’t a single "original source material" that can be recovered, unfortunately.
thanks to bestie
American capital will prompt other envoys to change the way they communicate with their home governments.
That time when TechDirt jumped the shark...
So Karl Bode is upset that the chairman of the FCC has not publicly commented on a non-public plan for an unlawful order directing the FCC to censor Internet speech. This is as fine an example of delusional thinking as we’re ever going to see.
The appropriate way for a high-ranking government official to react to an unlawful and unpublished plan is through direct and private communication with the author. Unlike conspiracy-oriented blogs such as this one, the FCC is not funded by click bait.
This alleged plan – that we only know about because of speculation by CNN – will never see the light of day. The Rivada 5G plan exists as an actual written document that has been shared.
Big difference.
Re: That time when Dick misrepresented the facts...
Dicky! I was wondering when you would pop your head back up. Your buddy Pai couldn’t stand to have some painful truths laid bare so he had you do damage control?
Alright, time to dig in:
Thank you for clearly labeling your strawman.
As he notes in the article, the FCC has publicly commented on a non-public plan before, but in that case it happened to be something telcos wouldn’t like. And I quote:
Oh gee, I wonder why they are so vocal about other "non-public plans" but not this one. Hmmmmm.
Welp, so much for that. As noted above, they blew that one already.
Huh, you mean like all those times Pai and the other Republican members trotted out lies and misleading facts from major telcos/ISPs that were summarily debunked later on, or in some cases prior to? Those types of "click bait"?
Do you have proof the WH hasn’t been floating it and discussing it internally?
Careful there Dicky, that sounds dangerously close to a conspiracy theory that is easily disproved by facts. Such as the fact that it was originally reported by Politico here:
CNN just took it up from there and actually got a summary of the draft:
See? I told you to be careful, someone just might call you on your BS.
Let’s certainly hope not. However, that doesn’t change the fact that Trump and his administration are actively looking at a plan that would blatantly violate the First Amendment of the Constitution. That’s a pretty serious thing for top government officials to be considering. Definitely newsworthy.
The draft order of this plan exists as an actual written document, and has been shared among members of the White House. Seems pretty similar to me. Plus, the Rivada plan was not initially public (if it even is now, got links?) and WAS leaked ahead of any public announcement. How deep are you planning to dig this hole?
Oh yes, huge difference. A private proposed plan that was leaked to the public is SO much different than a private proposed plan that was leaked to the public. Mhm, mhm, mhm. Yep, big difference there.
Try again Richard.
Axios shared a PowerPoint of the plan favored by Commerce Department official Earl Comstock to nationalize 5G networks. People who can read saw it here
While CNN – and only CNN – claims to have seen a draft summary of the alleged executive order, it has not seen fit to share it.
Re: Re:
From the Axios link you shared:
Gee, kind of sounds like a LEAK, don’t you think?
This is not the first instance of a draft order against online platforms targeting supposed "bias". Besides, CNN isn’t the only one reporting that it exists. As noted above, Politico got wind of it first. The fact that CNN is (for now) the only one to have seen the summary doesn’t mean it’s incorrect, or that the draft doesn’t exist at all.
As far as them not publishing it, that means less than nothing.
I certainly can read. You, apparently, cannot.
Try again Richard.
Re: Re: Re:
People commented on the tangible PowerPoint presentation Axios shared on the 5G plan, not simply on rumors that such a plan was in the works. Nobody has published a tangible version of the alleged executive order.
As I said at the beginning, that’s big difference.
Once again, Karl, you’re busted.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
And this makes a difference why? News articles regularly do not publish source documents for a variety of reasons. Doesn’t mean they don’t have what they claim to.
No, that’s not what you said at the beginning. You never said anything about comments on it and you also claimed it was pure speculation by CNN, something that I was able to immediately disprove because CNN was the SECOND news outlet to report on it. Not the first.
Once again, Richard, you’re busted.
Try again Richard.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
This is what I said in my first comment, Karl:
"This alleged plan – that we only know about because of speculation by CNN – will never see the light of day. The Rivada 5G plan exists as an actual written document that has been shared."
And that’s what I’m still saying. The 5G plan existed as an actual written document from the beginning, but not even the commenters at CNN and Politico who claim knowledge of it have seen it. CNN goes the farthest in claiming to have seen a written summary, but that claim remains unsupported by evidence.
We can continue this discussion when you have some something more than a whispered rumor.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
who claim knowledge of it–>
who claim knowledge of a Trump executive order on Internet censorship
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Yes, I do believe that is what I quoted in my reply to you. What was it we were discussing earlier about the capability to read?
And you’re still wrong, as I have pointed out in exacting detail. In fact, I even debunked this exact quote of yours. Repeating the same lie doesn’t make it true. CNN is not speculating, they didn’t make it up, they are the second news outlet to report on the existence of the draft, and Politico had to have either seen it themselves as well, or someone who had seen it spoke to them about it because Politico reported that it was a draft of an executive order to deal with supposed "anti-conservative bias in social media". The exact same thing the summary CNN posted said it did. Two different outlets, same document.
And so has this draft. I mean, it’s been circulated among WH staffers, so it had to be written which generally means it’s a document. I fail to see how you can say it isn’t.
That really doesn’t matter. They both got knowledge of it from sources inside the WH. This happens ALL. THE. TIME. Even on conservative news outlets. "A source inside the WH familiar with the matter", etc… And one of them HAS SEEN a summary of it.
You mean the evidence that Trump has been wanting to go after social media for years? Or maybe the evidence that a similar executive order was leaked back in September? It’s really not hard to take them at their word. The fact that two separate outlets reported the same thing would seem to be confirmation of its veracity. But do keep on digging. I do so enjoy shredding your arguments.
As I’ve pointed out, it’s already more than a whispered rumor. A whispered rumor would be only one outlet saying something like "we haven’t talked to anyone in the WH but we believe this draft order exists". That’s a rumor. TWO separate outlets claiming they have both spoken with several WH officials who have all confirmed they’ve seen it, and one outlet who managed to get a summary of its text is more than a rumor. That’s a bona fide fact.
So please, by all means, let’s continue this discussion.
Try again Richard.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
People commented on the tangible PowerPoint presentation Axios shared on the 5G plan
This is not at all true. Pai and others comments on the rumors of the plan. And you know damn well that they’ve seen this new document.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Kindly refrain from opining about what I do and don’t know; that always embarrasses you.
Your incapacity to discern a difference between a slide deck and a whispered rumor says a lot. If the heads of all the regulatory agencies went insane over every rumor about some stray thought that is alleged to have crossed the president’s mind, they wouldn’t have time to do their actual jobs.
Admit it, your Chief Conspiracy Officer is trying to make something out of nothing. That’s his job, granted, but this is a spectacular fail.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Even if your imagined state of affairs is accidentally true, there’s no particular reason for any government official to comment publicly on a draft document.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
You might want to tell them that, since they do it extremely frequently. It would probably be better for them in the long run if they didn’t. Then we wouldn’t have things like Pai, on record, lying about net neutrality and broadband deployment. At this point it probably wouldn’t help him much but at least his hole wouldn’t get any deeper.
Try again Richard.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Really? Seems to me the only one being embarrassed here is you. I mean, we’ve established you either can’t or don’t read articles before posting lies about them (since quotes from said same articles directly contradict your assertions), and Mike has confirmed that I am not Karl. I can only imagine how embarrassed you must be right now.
Your continued lies say a lot too. As has been explained, this is far more than a whispered rumor. Especially since they already did this once last year too.
Well they haven’t. They have enough freaking out to do about the confirmed stray thoughts that cross the president’s mind, and it appears that don’t have as much time as they should to do their actual jobs. They have to continually spend it catering to Trump’s whims and explaining to him that "no you can’t do that, it’s against the law". Unless you have insider knowledge you’d care to share with the class?
Your rejection of reality is really not helping your case here. Again, two separate news outlets, same basic report on something that Trump has stated he wants and will do several times, and is similar to another draft order that was confirmed to have existed a year ago. It’s entirely possible this is just a revision of that order. Either way, there is no reason to believe it is not real.
Try again Richard.
BTW Karl, why don’t you just post your comments using your real name rather than signing them with that cute little "try again" thing?
Re: Re:
Because I’m not Karl. And the fact that you think I am is just DELICIOUS.
Try again Richard.
Re: Re: Re:
Of course you say that.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I would say it’s pretty obvious, given the differences in our writing styles, among other things.
In either case, I still caught you with your pants down, again. So of the two of us, I’d say I’m the more believable one here.
Try again Richard.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Yeah, you’re Karl.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Actually am not, as confirmed by Mike.
Try again Richard.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
It is absolutely sodding hilarious when the best thing these guys can come with is pretending that there’s only one person disagreeing with them and that somehow means they no longer have to support their ravings. Nice to have Richard back, it makes a change when someone has the balls to say dumb shit under their own name, even if that doesn’t change the facts.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
As with everything else, such accusations of theirs smack of projection.
Like when Baghdad Jhon got so insistent that his photographer/lawyer impressions be taken seriously.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Richard, I can 100% guarantee that commenter is not Karl. And I find it hilarious that you assume it must be. Says something about how wrong you usually are.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
If it’s not Karl, it’s the president of his fan club; close enough.
Re: Re: Re:3
Someone’s a jealous little attention-seeker.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
There’s a fan club? And the president is a clone?
I will note that I have never "proclaimed the virtues of Karl and how awesome he is" or whatever else you think somebody’s fan club does. I have only ever addressed your statements and pointed out, with links and facts, how incredibly, and consistently wrong you are. You could be commenting on anyone else’s article and I would point out your lies there too.
Try again Richard.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Mike, you sir have just made my day!
I have wondered in the past if there was a way for me to prove to Richard that I am not Karl. I never dreamed you would confirm it yourself. A big thanks to you, sir!
Re:
Hi, I’m not Karl.
Try again, Dickie B.
"Free Speech" is what glorifies The Fatherland and Our Respected And Beloved Leader, along with his appointed deputies. Anything outside this parameter is, at best, Fake News, and is easily downgraded into sedition and radical utterances that can only bring harm and wanton destruction to the Glorious Cause. I’m confident that many drooling, bumbling, ass-scratching Thump lovers lust for an official regime-directed Information Bureau, through which all words which call themselves "news" must pass. (Some Fakes News blatherers such as Sean Hannity would get an automatic pass.) This is simply how things are done in a Fascist dictatorship. Your orders are: GET USED TO IT!
That time when TechDirt jumped the shark...
In summary, it is not normal practice for the heads of federal regulatory agencies to speak to the media on early drafts of possible White House executive orders. The FCC is independent of the White House by law and is not involved in the drafting of executive orders.
This post displays massive ignorance of the structure of the federal government and a sad fixation on conspiratorial reasoning. It’s the political equivalent of hypochondria.
Re: That time when TechDirt jumped the shark...
Richard, you’ve been arguing we were a nothing and that no one paid attention to us going back well over a decade. We all know you have zero credibility — so you claiming we "jumped the shark" is a good sign.
As the article clearly stated, it is in fact "normal practice" for FCC commissioners to comment on early drafts — they did so on the 5G nationalization plan, and I’ve personally seen Pai comment on a number of other things, including various attempts to amend CDA 230. He did so at a lunch I attended a few months ago — which was also very much "early drafts."
It’s not conspiratorial to point out his past behavior and note a difference here. But good on you to keep sucking up to Pai. I’m sure he appreciates your support.
Re: Re: That time when TechDirt jumped the shark...
Nice try at propping up the scam, but there are clear and obvious differences between the 5G plan cooked up by former NSC member AF Brig. Gen. Robert Spalding and an early draft of a presidential executive order.
Some of these are matters of content: the spectrum plan had direct relevance to the FCC’s jurisdiction over spectrum rights and broadband deployment, but the regulation of Internet social platform speech policies is not under FCC jurisdiction. I can show you where the Comms Act directs the FCC to manage spectrum and broadband deployment, but you can’t show me where the Comms Act says the FCC is supposed to regulate Facebook.
Another difference is the maturity of the proposal. The 5G plan was presented to a broad group of government stakeholders (the NSC) in a slide deck that was intended to elicit discussion. Nobody knows how early the alleged White House order is, who (if anyone) it was presented do, and what its status is with respect to discussion and revision. So it’s nothing more than a rumor and certainly not a concrete proposal.
And then there’s the broader question of FCC’s place in the federal government structure. Contrary to Techdirt’s claims, the FCC doesn’t report to the White House, it reports to Congress. The president nominates the commissioners and chooses one of them to be the chairman. He can’t fire a commissioner, and all he can do with the chairmanship is transfer it to another commissioner. It’s not the FCC’s business to comment on possible executive orders and no reason to believe it sees them. In fact, there are good legal reasons to believe they don’t.
Finally, you’ve made a claim about "normal practice" but you’ve only offered one incident in support. Statistically, one data point doesn’t prove a trend. In fact, the 5G case was the outlier and what’s happening here is the norm. You can’t show me a single instance in which an FCC chairman has ever commented on an early draft of a possible White House executive order. The 5G plan was certainly not related to any executive order.
So your story is a farce. The claim that the FCC is "oddly silent" is false. Techdirt is either clueless or deliberately lying.
Prove me wrong with evidence if you can; and if you can’t, you should take down the story or, bette yet, leave it up and label is as false.
Re: Re: Re: That time when TechDirt jumped the shark...
There’s no scam, Richard. We have a different opinion than you. Our track record is also about 10x as good as yours, so I’m not going to bother with your nonsense on that front.
Point is: Pai (and other chairmen) have commented on many proposals before, even nonsensical ones. As I noted, I heard Pai directly, at a luncheon, comment on Section 230 and regulating social media. So you’re just wrong, but your ego is too big for you to admit that maybe we’re right.
Re: Re: Re:2 That time when TechDirt jumped the shark...
You’ve still not provided evidence of an FCC chairman publicly commenting on an early draft of an executive order. That’s the only evidence that will let your troll off the hook.
All kinds of people comment on all kinds of proposals, but independent regulators have no history of commenting on proposals for early drafts of thoughts on possible executive orders. You can wave your hands and wag your fuzzy little head all you want about "proposals", but they’re not equal.
I will continue to wait for concrete, relevant precedent, but we both know you’d have shared it by now if you had any.
Re: Re: Re:3 That time when TechDirt jumped the shark...
You’ve still not provided evidence of an FCC chairman publicly commenting on an early draft of an executive order.
In typical Richard Bennett fashion, when you’ve lost everything else, you resort to trying to move the goalposts. Sure, I can’t show you a draft executive order that they’ve commented on because executive orders basically never impact the FCC. But, as you damn well known, the FCC has regularly commented on issues that would impact the FCC — which was the point Karl raised.
But because you look like a fool here, you have to move the goalposts and try to limit the discussion solely to draft exec orders. It’s a desperate ploy from someone who has lost all credibility.
Re: Re: Re:4 That time when TechDirt jumped the shark
I haven’t moved the goalposts, I’ve been asking for evidence of the similarity your conspiracy nut alleges from the beginning. You’re making his false charge because you feel like it’s your only way out. Let me suggest you break with precedent and try a little honesty.
Trump will never issue an order directing the FCC to censor Facebook; this entire affair is click bait.
Re: Re: Re:5 Those multiple times that Richard...
And I quote:
And I quote again:
And I quote again:
Also, for the first half dozen or so of your comments, you didn’t seem to have ANY trouble comparing this to the 5G plan and never ONCE did you make any kind of statement about the 5G plan not being an executive order. It was only after we continually, and repeatedly pointed out your lies and false statements that you suddenly brought that up. And really, the fact that it is a "different type of plan" is really irrelevant. If anything it makes it more noteworthy that they haven’t commented on it because it’s blatantly unconstitutional.
Not sure who you’re referring to but Mike, Karl, and myself have pointed out the similarities to you many times. Like the fact that it was a non-public proposed plan that was leaked. You know, how they’re actually pretty similar?
Can’t speak for what Mike is or is not doing but nowhere have I made any false charges. You on the other hand…….
You should take your own advice.
"Will never" and "wants to" are two totally different things. Besides, he’s done several other things that crossed legal lines and been smacked around for it by the courts. Why should this be any different?
No, it’s not. Our sitting president, the commander-in-chief, responsible for running and protecting the entire nation and upholding the Constitution, is literally and blatantly considering a plan that would violate the Constitution. This is the definition of newsworthy. The fact that the plan would attempt to usurp authority over an agency he doesn’t have, and that agency has stayed more or less quiet about it, despite being very vocal on other potential plans that weren’t blatantly un-Constitutional is odd.
Try again Richard.
Re: Re: Re:5 That time when TechDirt jumped the s
I haven’t moved the goalposts, I’ve been asking for evidence of the similarity
Yes. You asked for evidence of similarity. We gave it to you (actually, the original post did). And then when you realized we had given it to you, you moved the goal posts and went from "unpublished plan" to "draft executive order." It’s a troll tactic, Richard. And you know it. Because that’s all you’ve ever been.
You’re making his false charge
Projection, Richard. Projection. The only false charges are coming from your keyboard.
Let me suggest you break with precedent and try a little honesty.
Richard. People disagreeing with your nonsense are not being dishonest. We have a different opinion from you. And the only way you can deal with that is to pretend we’re lying. It’s sad and childish. Grow the fuck up.
Trump will never issue an order directing the FCC to censor Facebook
I mean, our own fucking article that you apparently didn’t read explained why such an EO would be DOA since he can’t instruct the FCC to do that… but only a jackass of your level could take that to argue that we were the ones making stuff up. You’re unbelievable. Seriously: no one fucking believes a word you say. Because you’ve never — not once — shown the slightest willingness to display even a smidgen of intellectual honesty. You’re a troll in a troll business and that’s all you’ve ever been.
Re: Re: Re:6 That time when TechDirt jumped t
The post fails to make a credible case for its claim that commenting on a proposal to the NSC is equivalent to commenting on a press rumor – with no concrete evidence – of an executive order that would be unlawful on its face. Contrary to Bode’s claim, the NSC presentation did not originate at Rivada Networks, it came from an Air Force General Robert Spalding. While Rivada certainly liked it, their influence over the Air Force is nil. Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross and his minion Earl Comstock liked it as well, but they didn’t write it either.
The Spalding proposal was reported in a credible way by the Actual Press; Axios published the slide deck. There has been no disclosure of the alleged Facebook censorship plan, and one of the two journalists who’ve written about claims to have seen no more than a summary.
It’s premature for official government reaction to a possible plan to make an unlawful order to solve a problem that may or may not exist. The alleged executive order simply isn’t at the same level of newsworthiness as the Spalding proposal.
It’s obvious that Bode is trying to use this leak as a cudgel for him to continue Techdirt’s unprincipled attacks on Chairman Pai. No reasonable person expected Pai to take this piece of media bait. While Techdirt bloggers generally do little more than summarize or react to news reported by journalists with actual sources close their stories, this post is among the saddest to appear on the site.
I have to laugh about Techdirt’s complaints about intellectual honesty. This is the blog that insists, contrary to academic evidence in 30 papers on the impact of piracy on the sales of music and video entertainment, that piracy does not harm sales of digital goods.
Techdirt is the Flat Earth Society of tech policy. You can’t curse your way out of the hole you’ve dug by publishing this ridiculous article.
Re: Re: Re:7 That time when TechDirt jump
The industry has been "dying" since the days of "Home Taping is Killing Music", and every year boast about how much money they’re pulling in. The industry chose of its own volition to sue grandmothers, children, and a wide assortment of the wrong people over the years.
The industry dug themselves into their own damn hole and lost the "morals" argument by choosing to pursue army veterans at the request of porn studios, which is why the IFPI had to resort to the "pirate sites are bad because an Australian media mogul visited one without malware protection" argument.
This level of Malibu Media apologism from Bennett is sad, though hardly surprising.
Re: Re: Re:8 That time when TechDirt
Dick believes that the only reason why anyone would want faster Internet is to pirate shit, which is why he thumps his chest every time his beloved Pai comes under attack for lining the pockets of ISP executives with government investment money derived from taxpayers.
The man knows which side of his bread is buttered.
Re: Re: Re:7 yadda yadda yadda
Richard, Richard, Richard. You’re beginning to sound dangerously close to a broken record. What’s the saying? Oh yes:
Almost nothing in your comment here is something you haven’t stated before and it’s been addressed and shown why it’s wrong by at least 2 or 3 different people now. Why you continue to repeat it, knowing that we’re just going to call you out on it again is beyond me but that’s your choice I guess. Here goes.
Only in your mind, Richard, only in your mind. As has been explained (many times) the FCC has commented on unpublished proposals in the past. You may not like it, but you can’t deny it.
This is not the first time an order similar to this has been floated, it happened last September. This one has also been reported on by two independent news outlets, who have both spoken to officials who have seen the draft, and one outlet managed to get a summary of its contents. This is far from "no concrete evidence". Of note, the WH has not come out and denied these reports so we can safely assume that this order exists as reported.
Wow, that goal post has got some legs on it! If this was such a relevant distinction, why didn’t you bring it up earlier? Regardless, Karl never said the NSC presentation was put together by Rivada, that’s just you putting words in his mouth. Instead he states "That plan was largely just the lobbyist brain fart". For those who have trouble reading, that means he is implying that Rivada lobbied for such a plan, and got somebody (namely General Spalding) to put something similar together and present it.
Yes. After it having been leaked to them. Just like the existence of this draft order was leaked. Something something broken record.
Literally irrelevant. It’s been corroborated by two independent news outlets and isn’t the first time a plan like this has been drafted.
You could have a point here, except you should have brought that up earlier. Plus, this also ignores the fact that A) official government reactions have been made on similar things previously, and B) no one is saying it has to be an "official" reaction.
The problem doesn’t exist and the order is unlawful.
You’re right, it’s not. It’s coming from the office of the President discussing exactly how to violate the First Amendment for all Americans. It’s WAY more newsworthy than the other proposal.
If Pai can stop lying and kowtowing to the telecom industry for two seconds, Karl would have no reason to call him out on his BS. You’re the head of the BAC, tell him.
Which is exactly what the article implies, since it implies that Pai isn’t commenting because this is would benefit telecom.
It’s a blog. And TD bloggers do have their own sources, but, as they have stated many times, they are not interested in "getting first scoop", they prefer to do more in-depth analysis. That doesn’t make them any less journalists than the ones that do "get the first scoop". Or are you going to say that you’re blog is somehow any different? Kind of a self-own there, me boyo.
You are entitled to your opinion.
Says the guy who can’t go a single comment without lying or repeating previously debunked claims.
TD has made no such assertion. This is easily provable by searching their past articles. Brazen of you to claim something that is so easily proven false though.
Flat Earth is easily proven wrong by observable facts. Observable facts have a history of proving TD right and are regularly quoted by them to back up their positions. Something you seem to struggle to understand, despite them being pointed out to you over and over and over and over and over….
The only hole digging going on is you and your continued lies, goal post moving, and repeating of previously debunked assertions.
Try again Richard.
Re: Re: Re:8 yadda yadda yadda
This is absolutely hilarious. Bode & fans treat an alleged proposal for a outlandish Trump executive order as no different from a serious policy proposal by an Air Force general.
Clue: the heads of independent regulatory agencies such as the FCC and the FTC have better things to do with their time than play Twitter wars with our deranged president. Ignoring his crazy fantasies is the most effective way to crush them.
TD’s amateurism is showing, and its disaffected audience loves it.
Re: Re: Re:9 yadda yadda yadda
I agree. You are.
As before, it’s really more than just alleged at this point. And yes, we do. The source is coming from much higher up the chain of command than an Air Force general. Or are you saying an Air Force general is more important than the President of the US? And while this draft may be outlandish, it is no less serioius than the other proposal. Especially in Trump’s eyes as this is what he’s wanted for years.
You might want to tell them that, since they regularly engage in such wars. Twitter history is a thing you know. Claiming something didn’t happen that did, that can easily be disproven with one quick search, is REALLY not a good look for you.
If he was anyone other than a government official, you might have a point. When a government official wants to do something to violate the rights of the American public, even if it’s unlikely to pass, it should be condemned long and loud, as even the mention of it from a government official is a threat to our freedom and democracy.
Your continued lies are showing and I do so enjoy embarrassing you with easily proven facts and logic.
Try again Richard.
Re: Re: Re:10 ROFLMAO
Techdirt is an even more hilarious comedy site than The Onion. Readers like Utter Coward actually think their automaton comments are "winning".
People like Bode and Utter are the reason Trump won.
Re: Re: Re:11 Finally give up on trying to lie about the reports?
This coming from the guy whose blog is almost literally just lies. At least the Onion is going for satire. Yours is just sad, and you really have no room to judge the accuracy of anyone else’s blog
Who is Utter Coward? Regardless, you haven’t provided one single shred of credible evidence, facts, or logic to prove us wrong. Therefore, yes, we are winning.
Pffft. Hahahaha!!
Oh wait, you’re serious.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!
Re: Re: Re:12 Finally give up on trying to lie about the reports?
Laughed so hard I almost forgot.
Try again Richard.
Re: Re: Re:12 Finally give up on trying to lie about the reports?
You see, Utter, it’s like this. You can’t distinguish facts from opinions, hence you believe you prevail over facts by simply sharing your feelings. You’ve accused my HighTechForum.org blog of being nothing but lies several times, but you’ve failed to fact check a single sentence on it.
You can’t do that because your claim is untrue; but you can keep asserting it because, as a victim of Techdirt, you don’t grasp the concept of truth.
Re: Re: Re:13 Finally give up on trying to lie about the reports?
Still don’t know who you’re talking about. I’m Anonymous after all.
That actually would be you, as I’ve quoted and linked to facts until the cows came home.
The only feelings I’ve shared have been the utter enjoyment I get out of shredding all of your lies. Everything else has been bona fide, verified fact.
Well actually:
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20190813/17555542779/pai-fcc-is-oddly-quiet-about-trumps-plan-to-have-agency-police-speech.shtml#c2204
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20190813/17555542779/pai-fcc-is-oddly-quiet-about-trumps-plan-to-have-agency-police-speech.shtml#c2418
Amazing! You mean I can do the impossible, then? I knew I was good but wow!
Haha! That’s a real knee slapper!
You’ve yet to come up with one single link that disproves any of mine. Instead you just lie and continue to try and shift goal posts. It’s sad really. And yet you say I’m the one with a truth problem.
Try again Richard.
Re: Re: Re:9 yadda yadda yadda
independent regulatory agencies
What regulatory agencies? The narrative you guys have been pushing for the past few years is that you can’t, shan’t, and won’t regulate the ISPs! You chucklefucks can’t even regulate Internet service that doesn’t blow over like a cheap condom in a hurricane when firefighters need it the most.
Re: Re: Re:10 yadda yadda yadd
There’s legal difference between regulatory agencies that are parts of the Executive Branch – like the Antitrust Division of the Justice Department and the EPA – and those that are independent, like the FCC and the FTC.
This narrative was pushed by the guys in Congress that wrote all those bogus laws, dude. It’s a bummer, in it?
Re: Re: Re:11 yadda yadda
Bummer that this has nothing to do with anything.
Try again Richard.
Re: Re: Re:11 yadda yadda
In other words, nothing more than your usual bluster of "FCC will not regulate, and fuck Title II! Wait, states are trying to regulate? You can’t do that, only we the FCC can do that! Which we won’t! But you can’t, we can! But we won’t! So you can’t!"
Snore.
Re: Re: Re:7 That time when TechDirt jump
I have to laugh about Techdirt’s complaints about intellectual honesty. This is the blog that insists, contrary to academic evidence in 30 papers on the impact of piracy on the sales of music and video entertainment, that piracy does not harm sales of digital goods.
We have never insisted this. You are making this up whole cloth. i.e., in accusing us of not being intellectually honest, you are lying.
What’s worse, is that you and I spoke about this when we met in person a few years ago, and you finally admitted that perhaps you were wrong with the conspiracy theory assumptions you falsely made about us. Now you’re repeating those same false lines.
This either means you don’t remember admitting to me that you were wrong or you don’t care. Neither is a good look.
Either way: more evidence that you are intellectually bankrupt.
Re: Re: Re:8 That time when TechDirt
When was that, ten years ago? More?
Look, you were babbling some trivia to the effect that artists are doing better than ever thanks to the t-shirt sales or something. After a bit more nonsense than I cared to hear, I politely excused myself from the conversation. After checking the data, I concluded you were deliberately dissembling.
And now you have this tech policy satire blog where you feed spin to these damaged readers. Whatever pays the mortgage, right?
Re: Re: Re:9 Re:
Path. O. Logical.
Try again Richard.
Re: Re: Re:9 That time when TechD
When was that, ten years ago? More?
Less. Your memory seems extremely faulty.
Look, you were babbling some trivia to the effect that artists are doing better than ever thanks to the t-shirt sales or something.
After a bit more nonsense than I cared to hear, I politely excused myself from the conversation.
This is not at all what happened, Richard. You followed me around like a fucking hound dog. I finally excused myself to go to dinner with non-assholes.
I concluded you were deliberately dissembling.
That projection again, Richard. Dude. It’s too bright.
And now you have this tech policy satire blog where you feed spin to these damaged readers. Whatever pays the mortgage, right?
Of all fucking people, I’d think you’d be the last to pull out the "you’re doing this for the money" claim. You’re such a total piece of shit. No wonder no one takes you seriously in DC, other than people who can have you be their local useful idiot.
Re: Re: Re:3 That time when Richard told multiple lies...
Flag on the play. Richard originally claimed they didn’t comment on "unpublished plans". Goal post has been uprooted and moved to the bleachers. 100 yard penalty. New claim requires no response or proof. Automatic dismissal of attempted point.
Troll? Where? The only one I see under the bridge when I look down is you.
So you admit that the FCC commissioners have commented on proposals in the past then?
Another flag on the play. Goal post moved to outside the stadium. 200 yard penalty. Richard loses all credibility. (If he had any to begin with)
I do believe it was you who started us off with "unpublished plans". Then when you were blatantly and obviously proven wrong, you changed it to a "draft executive order".
Well, we’ve provided you plenty of concrete relevant precedent to prove your original claim false. It’s not our fault you moved the goal post and tried to redefine the terms. But it really doesn’t change anything, since there have been relatively few (if any) "draft executive orders" that pertained to the FCC before now.
Try again Richard.
Re: Re: Re:2 That time when TechDirt jumped the shark...
It’s funny how your readers keep flagging the comments to which you’re replying. That says a lot about your audience, does it not?
Petulant crybabies is the phrase that comes to mind.
Re: Re: Re:3 That time when TechDirt jumped the shark...
Richard, it’s not funny. It shows what our community thinks of your credibility — which is they don’t buy it.
Who actually listens to your nonsense any more?
Petulant crybabies is the phrase that comes to mind.
Dude, the projection is so strong I can see it from the other side of the country.
Re: Re: Re:4 That time when TechDirt jumped the shark
Limp Dick certainly has his "quaint fixations."
Re: Re: Re:4 That time when TechDirt jumped the shark
Your readers love being lied to; in fact, they demand it.
Re: Re: Re:5 That time when TechDirt jumped the s
Really?
It looks instead like nobody loves you, much less demands you.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
This coming from the guy who does almost nothing BUT lie on his own blog and has a tiny fraction of the readership that TD does.
Try again Richard.
Re: Re: Re:6 Back it up
Kindly provide evidence of even one lie on the High Tech Forum blog, if you can.
Thank you.
Re: Re: Re:7 Re:
Heh. Hehe. Haha. Hahaha! Oh you poor unfortunate soul! You have no idea what you have unLEASHED! MWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! (thunder and lightning flash in the background)
*ahem.
What I meant to say was: Challenge accepted. Be careful what you wish for.
Let us begin.
From your recent article about internet policy on your home page, you list several points and state no one is going to talk about whether Silicon Valley dominant firms have a legitimate concern or if it’s a smokescreen.
Blatant lie. First, the challenge was not solely issued by the "dominant firms", and second, this is and has been discussed at length by not only sites like TechDirt and Ars Technica, but also other mainstream news outlets. You really have a problem with making lies that are easily disproven by a quick internet search and/or history.
I could stop there, since that’s one, and all you asked for, but I just can’t help myself.
In another article, you state that 1.1.1.1 does not help users keep their web browsing private.
I mean, we could just stop there. The title itself is a blatant lie. 1.1.1.1 is one of the DNS providers that offers encrypted DNS. If you enable it and set your computer to use it, your DNS requests will be encrypted and hidden from your ISP and anybody trying to snoop on your web traffic. It doesn’t hide it COMPLETELY, but it’s a far cry from doing "nothing for privacy".
But wait, you might be saying, your ISP still has to know the IP address of the site you are going to! Gotcha!
Except that most sites nowadays put their sites behind a service like Cloudflare to protect themselves from DDOS and other attacks. This puts multiple websites behind the same IP address. Even more common than that is web hosting. Web hosting services don’t always give out individual IP addresses to every website they host. So multiple websites could resolve to the same IP address. So while ISPs might know you’re going to a cloudflare protected site, they won’t actually know which specific site. Womp womp. Another lie.
Moving on, your article about the "Save the Internet Act" states that net neutrality as talked about doesn’t actually mean net neutrality and instead has something to do with telephones.
Oh where to start, where to start? I mean, TD, Ars Technica and other news and tech outlets have LOUDLY proclaimed that’s not what it’s about. And the text of the 2015 Order is undeniable proof of that. It’s about ISPs not becoming gatekeepers to content on the internet and instead providing neutral access to customers.
You also claim that it basically ignores what voters really want.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! How you can say that with a straight face is hilarious, considering every major poll has said the exact opposite.
Then there’s your article about the FOIA requests regarding the fake DDOS attacks on the FCC. You claim that it’s all false, the emails don’t prove anything, and that the whole thing was made up by a "Tom Wheeler operative" are outright lies and false.
Practically every network admin in the country and beyond called the FCC out on it when they said it was a DDOS attack, and it has since been confirmed that those claims were not false and it was in fact all true. There was no DDOS, just the site crashing under the sheer amount of people submitting comments to the FCC about a bad proposal that they understood all too well.
And these are mostly just from links on your front page. I could go on and on and on and on and on, but I think I’ve made my point and more than satisifed your requirement of showing "one lie".
Try again Richard.
Re: Re: Re:8 Re:
"You claim that it’s all false, the emails don’t prove anything, and that the whole thing was made up"
Ah, the Trump gambit. When presented with something that interferes with your world view, cry "fake news". When presented with evidence that it’s real, claim the evidence is faked. That way you can never be wrong, no matter how obvious it is to everybody else!
Re: Re: Re:8 Re:
you state no one is going to talk about whether Silicon Valley dominant firms have a legitimate concern or if it’s a smokescreen.
Blatant lie. First, the challenge was not solely issued by the "dominant firms", and second, this is and has been discussed at length by not only sites like TechDirt and Ars Technica, but also other mainstream news outlets. You really have a problem with making lies that are easily disproven by a quick internet search and/or history.
Point one is orthogonal and point two is asserted without evidence. Fail.
1.1.1.1 is one of the DNS providers that offers encrypted DNS. If you enable it and set your computer to use it, your DNS requests will be encrypted and hidden from your ISP and anybody trying to snoop on your web traffic. It doesn’t hide it COMPLETELY, but it’s a far cry from doing "nothing for privacy".
False. 1.1.1.1 doesn’t magically enable DNSSEC on domains that don’t use it. 1.1.1.1 does essentially nothing. BGP & DNS experts in the public interest sector have agreed with me on this point.
But wait, you might be saying, your ISP still has to know the IP address of the site you are going to! Gotcha!
Major destinations such as Google, Facebook, and Amazon are not hidden by Cloudflare and virtual hosting is only used by low-traffic sites. When you visit a site protected by a gatekeeper like Cloudflare, it’s still possible to identify it from the external references it makes. You lose again.
Moving on, your article about the "Save the Internet Act" states that net neutrality as talked about doesn’t actually mean net neutrality and instead has something to do with telephones. Oh where to start, where to start? I mean, TD, Ars Technica and other news and tech outlets have LOUDLY proclaimed that’s not what it’s about.
Title II was written for telephone services. I’ve done podcasts with the people who actually wrote the Title II revisions for the ’96 Telecom Act, and I’ve read the Act. I’ll stick with my evidence over your conspiracy nut fantasies.
You also claim that it basically ignores what voters really want. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! How you can say that with a straight face is hilarious, considering every major poll has said the exact opposite.
Open-ended polls on the Internet issues of highest concern to voters put NN way down the list, after privacy, fake news, trolling, ID theft, robo-calls and a host of other issues. The push polls that purport to show deep support for NN don’t fool elected officials because they misstate what NN actually does and doesn’t do.
Then there’s your article about the FOIA requests regarding the fake DDOS attacks on the FCC. You claim that it’s all false, the emails don’t prove anything, and that the whole thing was made up by a "Tom Wheeler operative" are outright lies and false.
Pai’s CIO told him it was a DDOS attack. That was wrong, but it is what he was told.
You have cited some analyses that are over your head, but none of these are lies.
Thanks for the laughs, Utter Coward.
Re: Re: Re:9 Re:
Lies on top of lies? I knew you were a liar but this is pathological.
Alright everyone, take your seats. Class is in session!
You’re the one who said they were behind the challenge. Since the public docket clearly shows more than just the dominant firms, your statement is a lie.
Well, I mean:
https://arstechnica.com/search/?ie=UTF-8&q=net+neutrality
https://www.techdirt.com/search-g.php?q=net+neutrality
Entire rest of the internet
You were saying something about a lack of evidence?
You have something on your face there, it’s kind of yellow and clear and runny.
Except, nobody was talking about DNSSEC. I do believe I said "encrypted DNS", in other words, DNS over TLS. You know, that thing that encrypts your computer’s DNS requests to a DNS resolver? That thing that 1.1.1.1 actually does once you configure your computer to use it?
Well I personally use it as my DNS resolver so it at least does DNS request lookups. But aside from that, as already stated, it also does encrypted DNS over TLS, and once you configure your computer to use it, your ISP has no idea what DNS requests you are making.
Oh, those must be the ones in your head. The ones that disagree with ACTUAL BGP and DNS experts.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNS_over_TLS
How to
Correct. They are big enough to have their own similar protection mechanisms that, shocker, work similarly. Or they are big and rich enough to buy enough IP addresses for all their sites. This really doesn’t prove anything.
So basically only the majority of web. Got it. Or are you going to insist that the majority of the web is made up of high-traffic websites?
Did you miss the part where I said it doesn’t completely hide your browsing? Encrypted DNS is but one tool/step in keeping your browsing history private. But your claim was that it did "nothing" at all. That, is a bald faced lie.
No, Title II was written for common carrier services, which is exactly what ISP internet service is. Not to mention Title II is applied to other things that are much further away from telephone services than internet service is.
Really? And who would those be?
This remains to be seen. Your ability to read has been called into question numerous times.
The evidence that exists solely in your head? I mean the act and its revisions kind of directly contradict your statements.
Ah ah ah, no goal post moving here. We’re not talking about what particular political topic is of "highest concern", we’re talking about what people think about one specific topic. And on that topic, the majority are in agreement, net neutrality is a good thing.
You mean almost every single poll on the subject? Besides, you don’t have to take my word for it: Net Neutrality Polls
Then I take it you don’t count most Democrat Senators and Representatives, as well as some Republicans across the aisle, as "elected officials" then?
Oh do tell.
Ah ah ah, I said no goal post moving. We aren’t talking about Pai, we’re talking about you. And YOU claimed that it WAS an attack and there was no proof to the contrary. In fact, you even gave your full support to, and quoted, said same CIO, who was later proven to have lied.
The only thing over my head is how you can double down on your lies, knowing that I can refute EVERY. SINGLE. ONE. with easily available information and links to documented proof you are wrong.
As I’ve just shown, they all are. And I’ve even provided links to prove it.
I still have no idea who this "Utter Coward" is you are referring to. As my name clearly states, I am "Anonymous Coward".
Class dismissed.
Try again Richard.
Re: Re: Re:10 Re:
You have to remember Richard’s test of whether a poll is legitimate.
It’s never legitimate, unless it’s okayed by Pai, even if they have to fake a DDOS attack and masquerade as people, living or dead, to scream for the removal of Title II. Even if said people or corpses didn’t consent to their identity being used in that way.
(Hey, John Smith! We know you’re still lurking the site. So masquerading as you – which I don’t believe for a second – is bad, but Pai’s boys faking results and a DDOS attack is kosher? Good to know!)
Re: Re: Re:5 That time when TechDirt jumped the s
Are you still wiping tears over the fact Shiva Ayyadurai failed to nuke this site you hate with the intensity of a thousand dying stars?
Get over yourself, Bennett.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
No, it says we recognize your lies, deflections, obfuscation, and goalpost moving for what they are and want to make sure everyone else knows it too.
Try again Richard.
Re: Re: Re:3 That time when TechDirt jumped the shark...
Oh, Richard.
When the public said they wanted net neutrality you insisted they were lying, misinformed, or sponsored by Google.
When the FCC polled the public you insisted that the poll’s results wouldn’t matter.
When the poll turned out in Pai’s favor you crowed about the victory.
When the poll was found to have been polluted by bots, spoofing dead people in support of the Title II repeal, you declared that the results stood, poll results don’t matter anyway because the FCC isn’t a polling organization (whatever the fuck that means), and who cares if dead people were being mimicked!
When Verizon failed to deliver priority service to emergency handlers you shrugged.
You insist that the FCC can’t regulate ISPs but scream like a stuck pig when states take the government’s job into their own hands, saying the FCC has that right.
You whine about people being mean to Pai while celebrating your affectations of "Bodey McBodeface".
They could build a city of skyscrapers out of the glass houses you shattered.
Re: Re: Re:4 That time when TechDirt jumped the shark
Verizon delivered the service the Santa Clara County Fire Protection District contracted for. Any other first responder agency would have purchased a plan consistent with their needs or, even better, used First Net.
Verizon wasn’t at fault, SCCFPD was.
Re: Re: Re:5 That time when TechDirt jumped the s
Yeah, killing Title II really helped them out there didn’t it?
Re: Re: Re:6 That time when TechDirt jumped t
SCCFPD bought their plan from Vz when the Schmidt Administration’s NN regs were in effect; it predates Pai’s RIF order.
Re: Re: Re:7 Re:
Astroturfing are we?
Try again Richard.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
Except that Verizon agreed to NOT throttle their plan when in the midst of an emergency, then proceeded to do exactly that. Verizon even admitted after the fact that they screwed up.
Come on man. It’s like you think we are stupid and never read the news.
Try again Richard.
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
SCCFPD bought their plan from Vz when the Schmidt Administration’s NN regs were in effect; it predates Pai’s RIF order.
Re: Re: Re:7 Re:
Literally irrelevant given Verizon admitted to screwing up.
Try again Richard.
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
Asserts facts with no foundation.
Re: Re: Re:7 Re:
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/08/verizon-throttled-fire-departments-unlimited-data-during-calif-wildfire/
I mean, if you count Verizon admitting they screwed up no foundation, sure.
Try again Richard.
Re: Re: Re:8 Re:
As usual, you cite a public relations statement that has nothing to do with the claims you’ve made as evidence for the veracity of your claims. If the SCCFPD incident was an accident, it has no policy implications. "Don’t ever make a mistake" is not an enforceable rule.
Keep on showing your ignorance, it’s fun to watch.
Re: Re: Re:9 Re:
"Don’t ever make a mistake" is not an enforceable rule.
And yet the current state of copyright law proves you wrong.
Re: Re: Re:9 Re:
Which admits to them having screwed up. Or are you saying Verizon is lying to their customers and the public at large?
Au contraire mon ami! The claim I made was that Verizon did in fact agree to not throttle during an emergency and that they admitted they did not hold up that agreement during the wildfires. I provided a link to their official statement admitting to just that. Public relations statements are official statements you know, that’s kind of what PR is all about.
Did I imply that it did? Let me see, nope, I did not. The whole point of it was to prove that you are regularly wrong on things and, quite often, lie about them.
You said Verizon fulfilled their contract and that it was the fire department who was at fault for buying the wrong plan. I have provided proof that you are wrong and quite likely lying.
No, but when you commit to doing something and then don’t do it, you are on the hook for that. Businesses regularly have SLA agreements with ISPs and if the SLAs aren’t met, the ISPs owe the businesses money. This is really no different.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! (gasps for breath) HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!
Try again Richard.
Re: Re: Re: Those multiple times Richard kept lying....
Such as? I have already pointed out to you in several posts just how similar the circumstances are. Should I quote them again for you?
True, but the draft order is attempting to MAKE it the FCC’s jurisdiction. Not really much different from the time the FCC had to explain to the president that they can’t revoke someone’s "news" license.
Quite literally irrelevant. The only relevant part is that it is being drafted and circulated at all.
True, but also irrelevant.
It was quite obviously presented to several people, as the facts clearly state.
One can only hope it was laughed off the table. Knowing our president, probably not. Regardless, the fact it is even being brought up is of concern. It means somebody doesn’t really know or care too much about the First Amendment.
You keep using that word. I don’t think it means what you think it means. To repeat myself, I’ve shown you multiple times how it’s far more than just a rumor. No amount of repeating the same lie will change that.
The order seeks to violate that structure. I should think that should be something the FCC (or any agency) should be explicitly opposed to and is something they should state.
TD has claimed no such thing. Honestly. How desperate do you have to be when you can just scroll up to see your lie exposed?
Thank you for explaining something we already knew.
As you just got done stating, the White House has no authority over the FCC, other than to appoint commissioners. As such, an executive order purporting to take authority over the FCC and direct them to do something would absolutely be something the FCC should be condemning.
Such as? Seems to me they comment on a good many other things. Why is this, an order that would cross legal and Constitutional lines and attempt to force the FCC to take orders direct from the White House be something they legally shouldn’t comment on? I would imagine a simple statement of "if this draft order should be signed, it would constitute a violation of the Constitution, laws, and democracy that America was founded upon and lives by today".
It’s trivially easy to do an internet search and find where the FCC, or its commissioners have either officially or unofficially commented on lots of other potential plans.
See above.
How did that goal post get over there? You originally stated "unpublished plans". Should I quote it for you?
That goal post certainly does get around.
No, actually the story is easily fact checked and verified with an internet search. Your comments on the other hand…..
I suppose Jessica did tweet out that one word tweet with a link to the story. So I’ll give you that on a technicality. But it doesn’t change the fact that they have commented on other "unpublished plans" in the past.
You misspelled your name there.
Done.
Try again Richard.
Re: Re: Re:2 Those multiple times Richard kept lying....
Still waiting for the evidence.
Re: Re: Re:3 Those multiple times Richard kept lying....
So you admit you can’t read then. Good to know.
Try again Richard.
Re: Those multiple times Richard kept lying....
Nice goal post move there. A few posts up it was just any "unpublished plan". Now it’s specifically "a draft executive order". Get called out too many times for your false statements so you had to amend it to claim a "win"?
You might want to tell Trump that.
Richard’s comment displays a massive amount of lies about facts that can be clearly independently verified and a significant amount of goal post moving after being called out on them. It’s exactly what you would expect from a shill who can’t win, no matter what he tries.
Try again Richard.
Re: That time when TechDirt jumped the shark...
Oi, Dick Bent.
Ars Technica called, they wondered why you haven’t been whining about pirates.
Holy shit, Pai finally let Dick up for air. How’s the Verizon taste, Bennett? Did you like your meat nice and smoked? That’s what happens when you fuck over the fire department!
Re: Dick
You kids have used the word “Dick” nine times already. You’ve probably never heard of him, but Dick Wiley is a former FCC Chairman. He’s a charming man, I hope you all get the chance to meet him some day.
[Note that my use of the term in question is appropriate.]
Re: Re: Dick
I dunno, so far the other references have been pretty spot on…
Re: Re: Dick
dick
Noun
I guarantee you it has not been used once in this comment section to refer to Dick Wiley. You claim to be intelligent though, it should be easy for you to figure out who is being referenced based on the above definitions.
Try again…Dick.
Re: Re: Dick
That reminds me, Dick.
Elizabeth Pierce called, said to tell you she has a space saved for you…
A government that wasn’t hellbent on fucking with everybody’s life could give two fucks what people say about it. Criticism comes with the territory.
Seriously, Dick, I know you spent a few months performing damage control between Pai’s thighs, but this amount of diarrhea just smacks of desperation.
By you and your fellow critics’ metrics this website has been going downhill – average_joe and John Smith’s (well, when John Smith was going by the Whatever pseudonym, anyway) favorite claim is "falling Alexa rankings". Who do you think is going to read your drivel besides the very people you insist are paid off by Google, and an insignificant number at that?
Starting posting to Ars Technica again, Dick. You’d at least reach a larger number of "leftist conspiracists" there. Of course, there’s the caveat that the people there are far less tolerant of your "only pirates want better Internet access and the fire department can go fuck itself" diatribes…
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07S2ZZMG8
YWECAN Car Cup Holder Mount for iPhone Xs/XS Max/X/8/7 Plus & 7"-10.5" Tablets, Universal Car Cradles Adjustable Gooseneck for Apple iPhone iPad Pro Air Mini, Samsung Galaxy Tab
UPGRADED:2-IN-1 UPGRADED DESIGN: Fits all smartphones and iPad or other tablet 7 to 11 inches. such as Apple iPad Pro 10.5 / 9.7, iPad Air 2 / 1, iPad Mini 4/3/2/1,iPad Air 1/2,Samsung Galaxy Tab A 8/9.6/10.1 inch,Samsung Galaxy Tab S/S2, iPhone XS/8/8 Plus/6 Plus, Samsung Note 8/9/s9, Google Pixel 3/ 3XL, OnePlus 6T, Huawei Mate 20 Pro, LG G7 ThinQ, SONY etc.
This Universal cup mount holder car kit comes with cellphone holder and tablet holder. Adjustable base for a perfect fit in most cars’ cup holders.
YWECAN Cup Holder Phone Mount is adjustable and fits firmly and perfectly, securely in the cup holder for car, truck or SUV, fitting to varying size cup holders in your vehicle.
360 degree rotation, Adjustable Angle.
Flexible neck with a 360-degree multi-angle swivel positioning, ideal for any viewing angle and any road condition.