Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt

from the so-you-say dept

This week, our first place comment on the insightful side comes from our post about Elizabeth Warren cosponsoring a bill to repeal Section 230 — before it was revealed that her name was included in error, and the post was updated. One commenter defended the apparent move as a reasonable way to fight “big tech”, and an anonymous commenter responded:

Except 230 reform isn’t an effort against Big Tech in a practical sense despite how they see it. It will ultimately weaken the freedoms of individuals. “Big Tech” will be just fine regardless of how the laws get shaped. They can afford to adapt. But the individual doesn’t have the budget or the voice at the table to make sure their interests are represented.

In second place, it’s Norahc with a comment on our post about National Law Enforcement Appreciation Day:

I’ll celebrate Law Enforcement Appreciation Day as soon as cops start treating citizens with respect the other 364 days of the year.

For editor’s choice on the insightful side, we start out with an anonymous comment about the financialization of music and the evolution of antipiracy messaging:

Remember the early 2000s when you could somehow still make the argument that downloading music hurt the artists, despite how label policies by and large were the ones responsible for how much moneys the artists actually got?

These days the antipiracy campaigns aren’t even about the artists anymore; the most publicly extravagant ones already squandered considerable public sympathy. Instead you’ve got companies playing up the scare factor of malware infections and financially supporting human traffickers… somehow.

Financialization and screwing the actual content creators over has always been the objective since Day 1.

Next, we’ve got James Burkhardt on our post about Wordle clones, responding to someone with some erroneous ideas about game copyright:

Mechanics are literally one fo the few things you explicitly can’t get copyright protection for. its in the law. look it up. 17 USC § 102 There is the text for you. its not long. Look at provision (b).

(b)In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work.

The script is copyrightable, the characters are copyrightable, the visuals are copyrightable, the music is copyrightable, voice dialog is copyrightable (all subject to other restrictions on copyrightability). The mechanics are not.

Over on the funny side, our first place winner is Norahc again, this time with a comment about Criss Angel’s ridiculous legal threat over a parody:

Not even Criss Angel can make the Streisand Effect disappear.

In second place, it’s Richard M with another comment on our National Law Enforcement Appreciation Day post:

WTF?

Reads headline
WTF What site am I on?

Starts to read article
Well that makes more sense

For editor’s choice on the funny side, we start out with wshuff and another comment about Criss Angel:

Maybe he could hire David Blaine to maybe bury the website in a block of ice or something.

Finally, it’s Bobvious with an excellent joke on our post about Meta suing a data scraping firm:

It’s OK everyone.

They’re only scraping Metadata.

That’s all for this week, folks!


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

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

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
40 Comments
This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
ECA (profile) says:

Doing others job

Got a new hobby.
I goto FB, and go down the page and find an Advert, and look up its info.
I goto their link and look at where they Are and the phone numbers.

Had 1 for 221B backers street, 8th floor, London.(anyone know that address?)

When I searched it I found over 2 pages of Companies AT that address, on the 8th floor. I opened the picture of the address, THERE IS NO 8th FLOOR.

So, I looked at the phone number and it has a region code. I looked it up. Vietnam.

Iv dont this to over 20 adverts. you would think, such an easy thing, that FB would verify the data.

I will give you one.
Fourskins.net
Address:Woodbridge Center Dr, Woodbridge,NJ 07095 ,USA

There is a tell, in the address. USA. no one in the USA types the USA at the end. And there is no # for Woodbridge center Dr. There is a Mall there, and looked up all the companies, they are not there.

And the contact Us. leads to a Picture of an address. In England that is so messed up. And the phone number is Local to England, but Not where the address is.

Its very entertaining. As FB isnt monitoring any of this. Also found a compnay that has a Certificate from FB to be a Lottery. Which I forwarded to FB, because Laws in the USA about Lotteries, change state to state.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Doing others job

Write a program to do the checking, and you might make a fortune. Otherwise the number of different adverts * the time it takes to research addresses and phone numbers equals where did all our profits go.

The scale of a problem matters, and it is easy for a human to pick out a bas example from the few adverts that they see. It is far from easy from the other side of the problem, hundreds of thousands of adverts to check. Anybody just looking at a few square inches of clover leafs can find the four leaf one if present, but finding all the four leaf clovers in a large field of clover is a very different problem.

sumgai (profile) says:

Re: Re: Doing others job

…. hundreds of thousands of adverts to check

Winner! ECA, this is a pretty big clue as to why your submission will be stuffed into the Circular File Bin. Facebook’s official response will be something like:

"Taking money from an advertiser and then not displaying his ad would be dishonest, and we’re all about honesty."

And they’d say that with a straight face!

ECA (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Doing others job

The hard part for FB,
Is trying not to spam and Not having Fakes online.
And if they keep standing behind 230. They need to Fix that idea, so they can Keep 230.
Or someone is going to court, showing Tons of faked data and sites, and use it against FB, as I would think they are being paid for a service, which Could make them Liable, as they are publishing it, NOT a person.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
WarioBarker (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Doing others job

And if they keep standing behind 230. They need to Fix that idea, so they can Keep 230.

Facebook/Meta’s made it abundantly clear that they want §230 neutered or dead, since they have more than enough resources to deal with any liability suits. Smaller companies (such as Techdirt) don’t have anywhere near those resources and would go under, thus making FB/Meta even more dominant on the internet.

They’re only "standing behind 230" insofar as they’re trying to push it off the cliff.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Doing others job

Or someone is going to court, showing Tons of faked data and sites, and use it against FB, as I would think they are being paid for a service, which Could make them Liable, as they are publishing it, NOT a person.

And just how many newspapers and magazines have ever been sued for publishing fake and scam adverts?

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Doing others job

"Had 1 for 221B backers street, 8th floor, London.(anyone know that address?)"

I know 211B BAKER street, which is Sherlock Holmes’ famous address. Is this what you meant, or is the quality of research you’re doing already failing because you’re looking for different things in a search to what you’re reading?

But, if you’re trying to prove people correct or otherwise by confirming the accuracy of information, you should probably wipe the drool off your screen and adhere to some actual logical ideas first.

For example, there’s nothing suspicious in there being multiple businesses listed at a single address. There are in fact companies that offer the ability to do this as a service. Then, listed phone numbers do not need to be tied to the physical address mail is sent to. You need to provide more details before anyone can confirm if this is something suspicious or if this is a simple case of "ECA discovers how business works".

"There is a tell, in the address. USA. no one in the USA types the USA at the end"

Did they type it, or was it added automatically? An international site adding the country to the address after they mark it on Google Maps is not suspicious.

"Also found a compnay that has a Certificate from FB to be a Lottery"

Again, you need to stop drooling long enough to write coherent English, because Facebook don’t certify anyone as being a lottery. What are you trying to say?

If you need us to carry on the research and translate your finding into legible English, please give us the names of the companies you’re searching for, because as usual all you’re saying here is "I’M MAKING NO SENSE, PLEASE IGNORE ME!"

ECA (profile) says:

Re: Re: Doing others job

read one line and stop reading do you?
Did you read that they were on the 8th floor?
Did you read that There is no 8th floor? Go look yourself.
Did you not look to see I gave 1-2 samples? Want more? I think I can find more.
Do you understand what a drop box or mail box is, and that each has its own number? That a mail service needs something like that to decide Where things go?
Do you know Any of the lottery regs in the USA. That it is illegal in many states. Go ask PCH about that, as there are states they can not mail into.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Doing others job

"Did you read that they were on the 8th floor?
"

Yes, but is the building on Backer Street or Baker Street? Excuse me for not taking you at your word without an example to check against your inability to type, so I don’t know if it’s you or the original source you didn’t share that’s making the claim.

"Did you not look to see I gave 1-2 samples? "

No, because that’s meaningless. I could pick examples that show the opposite of what you claim, and it wouldn’t prove either of us right or wrong.

"I think I can find more."

Cool, the n share them with the rest of us, in context and without your stupid edits. Them. we can see the same thing instead of trusting that the guy who can’t use copy/paste and is shocked by mailing addresses is doing better work than Facebook.

"Do you know Any of the lottery regs in the USA."

No, but I’m pretty sure that it’s not fucking Facebook certifying them!

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Doing others job

Did you not look to see I gave 1-2 samples?

That is not the problem facing Facebook. Ask them to verify all advertisers and individuals and small businesses will no longer be able to advertise on Facebook because verifying their details will become too time consuming for what they pay to place an advert, or too expensive to cover the cost of verifying their details.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Doing others job

What the fuck? Your concrete example of Facebook not doing something properly is a page that’s got nothing to do with Facebook?

Or, are you just displaying that you know nothing about how shared office spaces are used and you’re trying to act as if this is not common?

regus.com/en-gb/united-kingdom/london/camden/kings-cross-2326

What exactly is your point here other than to again loudly announce "i have no idea what I’m saying!!!"? State your actual objection to what’s clearly described as happening, and then tell us what the fuck this has to do with your whining about Facebook

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Doing others job

Try what one? You’ve found a page that’s not on facebook that does something you claim is dodgy, so it proves your argument about Facebook… how?

Although, your lack of critical thinking is on display here. You don’t specify what problem you hallucinated, so I presume we’re still talking about the office address? If so, here’s the listing for it:

https://www.regus.com/en-gb/united-kingdom/london/camden/kings-cross-2326

You should have read the fucking thing before whining to property owners of course, because it says this:

"A virtual office service is also available, for those who would benefit from a prestigious business address without a physical presence."

So, I will assume that you’ve just sent a complaint to property owners because you found someone using the property according to the terms of their contract. Brilliant!

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Doing others job

Don’t know what you’re expecting to find.

The address appears to be serviced offices and also what appears to be an accommodation address for registered companies. The company number on the page you link to does exist, and the principles are Chinese nationals with addresses in China. That company (HYMAX COMPANY LIMITED) has rubbish reviews, but it is a registered company. Even the names being different don’t necessarily indicate any wrong doing as it’s possible to trade under a different name that the registration.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Doing others job

So, you’ve gone from rambling nonsense about people using mailing addresses that you find "suspicious" to… complaining about the specs on a site that gives you 5 physical retail addresses to visit in malls in Guatamala? All without ever linking to any of the supposed ads on Facebook you claim to have been triggered by.

Are you going to furnish us with your actual point here, because you’ve gone a long way from whining that Facebook aren’t obsessing over Google Maps like you are.

ECA (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Doing others job

How many links you want, they have cleaned up allot.

Here is the response from the property management.

"Unfortunately there’s many on line businesses that use our address. This is not legitimate. We’ve tried to figure out how to stop this activity but unfortunately we have no recourse.

Thanks for checking with us!

Amy Bellisano, CSM
Sr. General Manager

Woodbridge Center
JLL, Retail
T +1 (732) 734 8641

M +1 (732) 742 5788"

that was about Fourskins.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Doing others job

"How many links you want, they have cleaned up allot."

One relating to what you were originally complaining about would be nice.

So, let’s see, so far you’ve provided zero links to a Facebook ad, which is what you were originally complaining about. One where you’ve had a response stating that nobody can do anything about it. One with several physical locations presented but no real complaint other than you find the specs of one of their goods suspicious. One where it’s a totally legitimate address whose property owner explicitly supplies the service you’re complaining about.

This doesn’t really prove anything other than ECA has way too much time on his hands and has a real problem communicating his actual ideas.

ECA (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:6 Doing others job

Fine by me, its working I see less of the crap that was all over my FB.
Even if I have to go deeper, its not much problem, as you cant keep me more busy then usual.

How about sites with no physical locations suggested?
There are tons of those, and many states dont like that At ALL.
Many states in the past had business’s that were also hones with store fronts, and they got upset about that, for some stupid reasons. NOW you have to be in a industrial or commercial designated Location, or you will be Fined.

This goes along with Lotteries. Every state is abit different and the rules are different. And unless you are registered AS a lottery, you CANT get the OK’ to be one.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:7 Doing others job

"Fine by me, its working I see less of the crap that was all over my FB."

WHAT is working? You don’t appear to be doing anything that would change what you see on Facebook, unless you missed a few major things out.

I suspect you’ve been reporting the ads or telling FB to ignore them at the same as what you’ve been posting here… in which case that’s what’s made a difference and none of the extra work you’ve laid out for yourself.

"How about sites with no physical locations suggested?
There are tons of those, and many states dont like that At ALL"

Half of the examples you have given have physical locations in UK and Venezuela, so it’s probably irrelevant what the US thinks about the majority of things you’ve been complaining about, unless you’re trying to say that people exporting to the US shouldn’t be advertising there.

Any specifics would be down to advertising laws where you’re located (or where your VPN endpoint is located if you use one), and that makes a huge difference as to whether there is any problem at all. But, as I’ve pointed out, you’ve complained about at least one ad where the address used is clearly in line with the rules surrounding them, unless you have evidence that someone is claiming to be at the address without having an actual contract with the location – in which case you’ve already done way more investigation than most people do before accepting an advertiser.

"This goes along with Lotteries. Every state is abit different and the rules are different. And unless you are registered AS a lottery, you CANT get the OK’ to be one."

OK, but you’ve not given any reason to think that anyone is claiming to be one that isn’t allowed to. You’ve not linked to an FB ad, you’ve not supplied any details as to where they say they’re located or your reasons for thinking they’re a lottery. The lottery commission of the relevant state would be happy to hear from you if you think something’s fraudulent, I bet, but you’ve not provided any information here that would allow anyone else to say whether you’re correct one way or the other.

That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

No idea, not something I pay attention to but even then I wouldn’t put that up to Shkreli’s level as there’s a difference between ‘If you work this job your boss is such a penny-pinching miser/sociopath that safety is several levels below speed on the list of priorities’ and ‘If you want this medicine you’re only going to get it from this one company, no matter the price, because they’ve gone out of their way to make sure that there are no alternatives.’

From the article Bobvious posted:

He also designed supply agreements to block competitors from offering a generic version of the unpatented medicine, which is used to treat the parasitic disease in pregnant women and patients with Aids.

‘Screw health and safety, all that matters is you doing the job you’re given as fast as possible’ is certainly up there on the evil scale but it’s hard to match the modern-day version of ‘Your money or your life’.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

Irrelevant. Shkreli wasn’t convicted of taking life saving medicine out of the reach of ordinary people and potentially killing people as a result. He was convicted of investor fraud. Same with Elizabeth Holmes – she was not found guilty of the crimes against ordinary people, only the ones involving stealing from other rich people.

Unless Bezos has some investor fraud sideline going on, he has nothing to worry about.

sumgai (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

Shkreli wasn’t convicted of taking life saving medicine out of the reach of ordinary people and potentially killing people as a result. He was convicted of investor fraud.

What was that line about Al Capone again?

AC: You can’t pin that on me, coppers!
US: Maybe we can’t get you for murder and racketeering, but we’ll put you away just the same. Let’s see your tax returns…..

Moral of the story: Two stupids don’t make a "Get out of jail free" card.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Re:

Yes, but Capone was actually committing the crime of tax evasion.

That’s my point – Shrkeli and Holmes didn’t simply defraud the general public with potentially fatal consequences. They committed to cardinal sin of stealing from rich people. Bezos is committing a lot of similar crimes, but nothing is going to be done unless he’s similarly stealing from his fellow billionaires. If he’s not, then he’ll not face any consequences.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re mechanics copyright game companys are now starting to patent gameplay concepts , which is a bit ridiculous as every aaa game is basically based on mechanics from Older games online ranking putting bots in online games to make both sides equal in no, picking up items to upgrade weapons, online leaderboards, menus to join a particular map or game type to play with your friends, games work in a similar way , aiming weapons, zoom scope, reload, it would be tiring if every game Dev had to make completely unique menus for every single game in order to avoid ramdom patent tools or company’s who just want to reduce competition in for example online fps shooter games
There’s a reason why all TV remotes use basic button layouts for common commands eg plus volume up minus volume down channel plus, minus, , menu, power on etc
There’s probably someone right now applying for a patent to sell nft items in games

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published.

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

Comment Options:

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

What's this?

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

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

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