Daily Deal: Xbox Game Pass Ultimate 2 Months Subscription
Antisemitic Conspiracy Theorist Who Sued YouTube For 1st Amendment Violations Now Owes YouTube Nearly $40,000

Reminder: Section 230 Protects You When You Forward An Email

Defamation

from the section-230-protects-you dept

Mon, Mar 20th 2023 10:41am -

Sometimes it feels like we need to keep pointing this out, but it’s (1) often forgotten and (2) really, really important. Section 230 doesn’t just protect “big tech.” It also doesn’t just protect “small tech.” It literally protects you and me. Remember, the key part of the law so that no provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable for someone else’s speech:

No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.

People often ignore or forget about that part, but it’s important. It’s come up in cases before, such as in Barrett v. Rosenthal. And, now we’ve got another such case, highlighted first by Prof. Eric Goldman.

Professor Janet Monge from the University Pennsylvania, and curator of part of the Penn Museum did not like what this HyperAllergic article said about her, and insisted that it was defamatory. She then sued a whole bunch of people, including the publisher, HyperAllergic, and the two authors of the article, Kinjal Dave and Jake Nussbaum. However, there were many others listed as well, including a fellow UPenn faculty member, Dr. Deborah Thomas, who did nothing more than share the article on an email listserv.

Back in February, the court easily dismissed the defamation claims against HyperAllergic and the two authors mainly because the allegations are… true:

The allegations in Dr. Monge’s amended complaint demonstrate that this statement is, in all material respects, substantially true, and thus Hyperallergic, Ms. Dave, and Mr. Nussbaum cannot be held liable.

Other statements are non-defamatory because they’re “pure opinions that convey the subjective belief of the speaker and are based on disclosed facts.”

However, now in dealing with the claims against Dr. Thomas, the court was able to use Section 230 to dismiss them even more easily without having to even analyze the content again:

Dr. Monge, by asserting defamation claims against Dr. Thomas, seeks to treat Dr. Thomas as the publisher of the allegedly defamatory articles which Dr. Thomas shared via email. This is precisely the kind of factual scenario where CDA immunity applies. Therefore, Dr. Thomas’s conduct of sharing allegedly defamatory articles via email is immune from liability under the CDA.

Monge tried to get around this by arguing that Thomas “materially contributed” to the defamation by including commentary in the email forward, but the court notes that since she did not contribute any defamatory content, that’s not how this works. You have to imbue the content with its violative nature, and simply summarizing or expressing an opinion about the article in question is not that:

The CDA provides immunity to Dr. Thomas for sharing the allegedly defamatory articles via email and for allegedly suggesting that Dr. Monge mishandled the remains because Dr. Thomas did not materially contribute to the allegedly defamatory articles she forwarded.

As Prof. Goldman notes in his writeup of this case (which he describes as “an easy case” regarding 230), this highlights two key aspects of Section 230:

This is a good example of how Section 230 benefits online users, not just “Big Tech.” Dr. Thomas gets the same legal protection as Google and Facebook, even though she’s didn’t operate any system at all.

It’s also a reminder of how Section 230 currently protects the promotion of content, in addition to the hosting of it. That aspect remains pending with the US Supreme Court.

These are both important points. In the leadup to the Gonzalez case at the Supreme Court, lots of people kept trying to argue that merely recommending content somehow should not be covered by Section 230, but as this case shows were that to be the case, it would wipe out 230 in cases like this where its protections are so important.

Filed Under: , , , , , , ,
Companies: hyperallergic

138 CommentsLeave a Comment
If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...
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 “Reminder: Section 230 Protects You When You Forward An Email”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
138 Comments
Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Monge tried to get around this by arguing that Thomas “materially contributed” to the defamation by including commentary in the email forward, but the court notes that since she did not contribute any defamatory content, that’s not how this works. You have to imbue the content with its violative nature, and simply summarizing or expressing an opinion about the article in question is not that[.]

Well, that’s gonna put a dent in one of our longtime troll’s “sue everyone who shares defamatory content” plans. 🤣

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re: Re: Re:

He mad a claim (a dumb, wrong one) and refuses to support it (obnoxious when it should be easily verifiable) or withdraw his claim.

I hope you can now appreciate how frustrating you are to deal with around here.

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

Matthew M Bennett says:

Re: Re: Re:2

I hope you can now appreciate how frustrating you are to deal with around here.

You mean when you ask me for “proof” of a thing that is a matter of the national conversation and should be common knowledge to anyone discussing the topic? Which when provided such evidence you will then quibble and ad hominem only to admit a few comments late that you WERE aware of the basic fact?

Example: You claimed to be unaware and tried to make me prove that Twitter was banning people over “misgendering”.

So no, I don’t think I can “appreciate”, you stupid, disengenuous fucktard.

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

Re: Re: Re:

He mad a claim (a dumb, wrong one) and refuses to support it (obnoxious when it should be easily verifiable) or withdraw his claim.

There is this obnoxious commenter here who goes by “Matthew M Bennett” who does this all the fucking time and not once has he withdrawn his obviously wrong and dumb claims.

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

Re:

It is not Mike’s responsibility to make you grow up and learn to be a functioning, non-insurrectionist adult.

Besides, if you simply ignore EVERYTHING that Mike has written (plus everything Eric Goldman has written, and something we call case law)…

It is a YOU problem, not a Mike problem.

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

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

Yay, it sounds like we can talk about content (even if someone claims it defames them) with out opening ourselves to unreasonable liability.

At least for a little while.

In light of that: Good luck to this Janet Monge person in growing up to be a non-terrible person. It’s a task we all have to face (though some of use fare better at it than others).

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

Anonymous Coward says:

Re:

It would help if the alleged distributor of the libel had to prove third-party authorship and produce the third party.

From the “I Never Read the Article” group of people.

Did you not read that the author of the original text was known?

Here let me help, from the article 👇👇👇

“the court easily dismissed the defamation claims against HyperAllergic and the two authors mainly because the allegations are… true”

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

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

Matthew M Bennett says:

Re: Re: Re:2

moderation is free speech

It’s not, and whoever came up with that line is a retard. (Yeah, it’s Masnick)

from calling it censorship

Assuming it’s removing content, it absolutely is censorship.

just because you don’t agree with it.

Whether I agree with it or not has nothing to do with it. There certainly is censorship I agree with.

How did you get this dumb?

bluegrassgeek (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Overreliance on slurs is not a good look

It’s not, and whoever came up with that line is a retard.

You really are obsessed with that term. “retard,” “fucktard,” it’s just your go-to insult. Rather telling that the only response you have for disagreement is to use a derogatory term for people with a developmental disability.

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

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

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

Hyman Rosen (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5

On a platform where communication is in writing, no one can be heckled or intimidated into silence unless they choose to be. Just as an example, none of the screeching directed at me here has had any effect. Not even the half-hearted attempts to silence by annoyance using the moderation queue and flagging have had any effects, except to get me to post as nit signed in.

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

Re: Re: Re:

If the speech is true it’s not libel to start with, dumbass.

Then you should talk with your hero, Ron DeSantis who is pushing a law saying that anonymous speech should be automatically considered false.

Or are you saying that Desantis is a “dumbass”?

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

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

Re: Re: Re:3

Earlier this month, DeSantis held a roundtable with a collection of right-wing personalities and attorneys who he said were media libel law experts. The main takeaway from the roundtable, which foreshadowed forthcoming legislation, was that DeSantis believes some journalists make things up.

“The idea that they would create narratives that are contrary to discovering facts, I don’t know that was the standard,” DeSantis said during the roundtable. “Now it seems you pursue the narrative, you’re trying to advance the narrative and trying to get the clicks, and the fact-checking and contrary facts have just fallen by the wayside.”

Andrade’s proposal incorporates many of the elements DeSantis called for during the roundtable, including:

— allowing plaintiffs who sue media outlets for defamation to collect attorneys fees;

— adding a provision to state law specifying that comments made by anonymous sources are presumed false for the purposes of defamation lawsuits;

— lowering the legal threshold for a “public figure” to successfully sue for defamation;

— repealing the “journalist’s privilege” section of state law, which protects journalists from being compelled to do things like reveal the identity of sources in court, for defamation lawsuits.

Source: https://www.politico.com/news/2023/02/23/florida-gop-desantis-proposal-sue-media-00084023

Seems like you’re the one who doesn’t understand the proposed law.

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

Matthew M Bennett says:

Re: Re: Re:4

You’ve made two mistakes here:

  1. Believing politico’s very biased characterization
  2. All that means is that you can’t use anonymous sources as part of a positive “It’s not defamation if it’s true” defense. Which only makes sense, cuz in citing a an anonymous source you have presented no actual evidence that what you are citing is true. The “source” could well be made up, or someone who the journalist has no particular reason to think knows or is telling the truth. (Something I suspect that has happened quite a lot the last 6 years) This is just plain logic, but it was somewhat broken Sullivan v NYT, where now some journalists have figured they can just post gossip or even literally lie and get away with it.

So yeah, I’m going to go with “you don’t fucking understand the proposed law”. (Politico either didn’t or wants to lie about it)

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

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

Kinetic Gothic says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Not the way it works

An anonomous source claims that Ron DeSantis has restricted access to his some signing events to favored media channels like Fox news.

This is perfectly true, you can verify it yourself but I am not naming my source here, but according to the to the law it would be presumptavly false and defamatory.

The fact that a source is anonymous or not has no actual bearing on the veracity of a statement, anonymous sources can be telling the truth, and identified sources can be making false statements. Indeed the person making the claim of defamation may well be able to verify the facts of the statement but is making a false claim that the statement that is untrue. what matters is if the statement can be verified as factual or not, anonymous sources might make this harder, but not so hard that they should be legally presumed to be false and therefore defamatory.mDeclaring them to be so serves to produce a chilling effect on the use of anonymous sources and would result in information from such sources being suppressed.

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

To one and all;

I’m going to sound like a butt-hurt whinger, but hear me out, OK?

For the past two months or so, M. M. Bennett has been a constant thorn in our side, and I’ve let that ride. It’s Mike’s show, and I didn’t pay any piper, so I don’t have to dance, and all that jizz-jazz.

But it’s becoming increasingly obvious that no matter the topic, Bennett is able to drive the majority of readers (both members and AC’s) to distraction. And I don’t like it.

Over the past two weeks alone, Bennett has posted more than 300 times (I counted (yeah, I’ve got nothing better to do)), and has been flagged for absolutely every one of them. While that percentage of flagging would be a good thing, in a rational world, it’s not only not affecting him, it has dramatically increased his output… and that’s a bad thing.

Why? Because he inflames nearly everyone, me included, and we get to the point I’ve made repeatedly in the past, and others have made recently. To wit: The answer to speech in NOT more speech, it’s ostricism (an ancient Athenian principle of protecting the community). As with wild animals, if you feed them, they will continue to bedevil you. If you don’t feed them, they will seek more fruitful hunting grounds.

Because this place has developed the habit of feeding the trolls, I can no longer participate in any discussion wherein Bennett is to be found. To add insult to injury, I also counted the number rebuttals that he engendered while demonstrating his inability to recognize reality: nearly 3500 replies. Yes, I’m including some of his own material, but I counted everything from where he first posts – all replies thereto can be summed up to a staggering conclusion – Bennett is anathema to rational discussion on TechDirt.

Mike, I’m not asking for special favors here, and in fact I’m not asking for anything at all. I’m only stating that my remaining lifetime is too short to keep engaging in a battle of wits with an unarmed child, for I will surely die before he grows up to become a contributing member of society.

To the rest of you, carry on, and I’ll continue to copy the mail, so to speak.

sumgai

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

Re:

And I keep saying, there’s only one way to stop these assholes dead in their tracks and it’s sadly NOT more speech, but by exercising the right to associate and kick these goons out.

Flagging will only minimize the problem, because they’re already motivated enough to harass us.

Even rebuttal the usual suspects’ pretense at arguing the topic is getting tiresome, to be honest…

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

Re:

I’ve made the same plea a few times, only to be told that it’s not my job to complain about trolls sucking up all the oxygen.

I mean, the little arsehole uses gendered, homophobic and transphobic slurs with abandon, repeatedly, even today and in the same thread told different commenters to ‘get fucked’, and isn’t even creative with his abuse, for all his self-vaunted and little evidenced intelligence.

On any other blog or forum, he’d have been permabanned in a week or less.

But Mike’s commitment to free speech apparently outweighs the feelings and rights of his female, gay, trans, and minority commenters here. I mean, we could go elsewhere to avoid Pottymouth Matthew, but why should a dozen of us go, when one troll could just be removed?

I agree with your comment, but nothing will change until Matthews grows old (which will take another 60 years) or Mike gives up on the blog, which will take less time.

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

Matthew M Bennett says:

Re: Re:

I mean, the little arsehole uses gendered, homophobic and transphobic slurs with abandon,

Excuse me, not only is this dumb, it’s lying.

“Gendered” only rarely (an awful lot of insults are gendered). In fact, way less than yourself, who started off with the emasculating BDSM shit, then cackled like an old retired whore when I pointed out the hypocrisy of it (I was not particularly offended, I just thought the route of insult said a lot about you). Basically all my gendered insults have been reserved for you, partly cuz of the BDSM shit partly cuz your insults have such an inane nasty quality that I see predominantly exhibited by women, and I was hoping you would get the hint, you dumbitch. (one “b”, one word, cuz I said so)

homophobic and transphobic slurs

No, never, not once actually. I may have views you disagree with (primarily that biological men should not compete in women’s sports and no you can’t make someone participate in a gay wedding) — those views do not make me “transphobic” btw and you cannot make me change nor hide my view by claiming they do. But I have never made a homophobic or transphobic slur and you are lying if you claim I have.

I am principled libertarian and fully believe everyone should be treated as purple blobs, particularly on the internet. I look at YOUR gendered (and emasculating diminutives) and think it makes you a poor quality of human who deserves to die alone with her cats.

Now kinda STFU you dumbitch.

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

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

It’s becoming increasingly clear that Masnick can use free speech as a convenient cover for the massive amounts of engagement Matt brings to the site. Matt makes Mike money, therefore why ban him? Mike is willing to make his bar a Nazi bar, so the proverb goes. Why should sensible people stick around and feed Matt? Let Mike have Matt and we’ll go elsewhere

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

Re: Re: Re:

It’s becoming increasingly clear that Masnick can use free speech as a convenient cover for the massive amounts of engagement Matt brings to the site. Matt makes Mike money, therefore why ban him? Mike is willing to make his bar a Nazi bar, so the proverb goes. Why should sensible people stick around and feed Matt? Let Mike have Matt and we’ll go elsewhere

My commitment is to making it easier for most people, including you, to comment without having a login. Most users do not abuse that privilege. Were I to “ban” Matt, what would happen? He’d likely just keep posting anonymously, like you. What good would that do?

And, deleting comments is just non-stop wack-a-mole, and I don’t have the time to baby sit every single comment. Plus once people respond to comments, if we actually deleted them, then… the replies are all confusing as well. It just makes a mess of things.

But, no Matt does not make me any money. We don’t make money from ads, and it’s not like Matt’s rants drive more traffic.

My general take on commenters like Matt is that they’re useful tools (and I mean that in the worst way) in that they are so dedicated to trolling that they’ll roll through every possible brain-dead nonsense ever, and it acts as “batting practice.” When I engage with people who disagree with me, but who actually matter (unlike Matt, so people like elected officials, media, etc) who challenge my points, I’m much more ready to respond to them, because I’ve already seen every angle of nonsense, as Matt and the few others like him will try every ignorant, foolish, nonsense claim there is, so nothing takes me by surprise. In his own stupid way, he makes my work that much stronger.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2

…unfortunately, from a moderation standpoint, Matthew is the sort of asshole whose stated goal, which he stated up front, mind you, is to force you to close up shop through a concerted garassment campaign.

Sure, there’s Koby, who at least shuts up after a few responses, and the drive by harassers who don’t bother to stay, but then there’s people like Matthew who are basically one DeSantis statement/Trump “tweet” away from “exercising his 2A rights”.

I get the sharpening your arguments part, I really do. But I’m not so sure of it’s at the cost of lost income or engagement.

Even I’m getting tired of batting away the “troll”, especially when said troll basically doesn’t care about engaging anyone enough to at least stop.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2

I said it once a while ago, but: If the barrier to entry for basic community participation is non-trivial, many people will look elsewhere.

I greatly appreciate Techdirt’s approach to the comment section and moderation.

Any serious attempt to “ban” a given commenter will require the abolition of anonymous commenting. Which I would find very sad.

And to the people who feel that Techdirt lets too many nasty comments about people through: Techdirt is welcoming to everyone. Only when the community decides someones behavior is unacceptable does that welcome diminish. If that sort of community is not filling your needs, I recommend looking to fill that need at a place that does. I have personally had good experiences with small IRC channels. There are obviously other alternatives, but as I’ve not used them I can’t say one way or the other about them. Of course, contrary to many trolls here, that does not mean you can not or should not participate in Techdirt’s community, only that one community may not be filling all of your needs.

I hope to see many more years of an Techdirt where anyone can comment at the drop of a hat, and one where the community is free to decide “no we don’t want that behavior at the front of our community”.

PS: Mike I hope Techdirt can get the comment flagging working again without javascript.

bluegrassgeek (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 FFS

My general take on commenters like Matt is that they’re useful tools (and I mean that in the worst way) in that they are so dedicated to trolling that they’ll roll through every possible brain-dead nonsense ever, and it acts as “batting practice.”

No, this is a terrible take. Letting someone run rampant shitting all over the comment section is not helpful in any way, shape, or form. Especially when they’re throwing derogatory slurs all around the comments.

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

Re: Re: Re:3

Letting someone run rampant shitting all over the comment section is not helpful in any way, shape, or form.

THIS!!! Mike, let’s make this a bit more personal. Suppose that we are all of us, members and AC’s alike, sitting in your physical living room. (And let me presume your family is not present for this one.) Matthew comes in the open door, and proceeds to shit all over the carpet, and doesn’t stop there, he takes a baseball bat to every other guest’s head (the insults), and looks at you with a gleam in his eye.

The only question becomes blindingly obvious – do you kick him out for his anti-social behavior, or do you praise him for being so expressive (strongly implied by not kicking him out)? And the further question is, where do you draw the line between the physical world and the world we call the internet? Come to that, why is there a line in the first place – isn’t social interaction still social interaction, regardless of where it’s taking place?

And while I don’t like to say anything about it because it sounds like bragging… I’ve also been running a forum on the web, for the past 17 years. It’s grown to a little over 3,000 members. (And before that, since 1997, I was an Admin for several decent sized Yahoo groups.) I know both what it means to ban someone, and what it takes to make it effective. Bennett absolutely can be permanently banned, and WordPress has the tools for you to do it. A few keystrokes, and you’ll never again have to see threads like the immediately past 20 or so responses.

Distorted threads because of replies that don’t make sense (deleting Bennett’s posts)? No, you don’t have to go looking for his crap in order to delete it. (Nor do you need some kind of bot to automate it for you.) In fact, once he’s permabanned, he becomes an object lesson by way of reference. Other posters can ‘gently’ warn offenders what happens when one goes too far off the reservation with a simple “You might want to look as what happened to Michael M. Bennett, ’cause you’re starting to get pretty close to what he was posting”.

Final words: This site and it’s comment section are not here to ‘educate’ anyone by turning them into ‘true believers of the faith’ – that’s how I’d describe Bennett and Company’s actions. (Koby, restless, lostinlados, Hyman, they’re all in his company.) No, we’re here to be alerted to news items about things that might have profound effects on our daily lives, and we’re allowed, thank you again, to comment and share our opinions on the given topic. Being told ad finitum that you botched it, and that we’re all numbskulls, that’s not helping matters any. You don’t mind being cast in a dark light, and I don’t either, but when such casting keeps getting in the way of positive discussions, our personally individual tools for separating the wheat from the chaff become awful shop-worn, don’t you think? Hell, even S.T. Stone has receded from his usual castigations of idiots like Bennett… do you suppose, as I do, that he’s decided that it’s not having the desired effect?

Again, I’m not asking for anything, just offering up some food for thought, that’s all.

sumgai

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

Hyman Rosen (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4

I don’t think of myself as being the same as the others with whom you included me, but of course I would say that.

There’s a certain sense in your post that you and your like-thinkers want to sit around and pat yourselves on the back for being so wise and perspicacious, and people like me just get in the way of that. I think that the TechDirt owners and community are fundamentally wrong about some things, and are wrong in that way on an ongoing basis, and that, while I have no hope of actually changing your minds, I can at least demonstrate that these views are not universal.

I think that TechDirt and its community also construe dissent as hatred so as not to have to engage meaningfully with that dissent, and instead just silence it. (Saying “go elsewhere to speak” does not address the issue of silencing dissent here.)

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

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2

Firstly, I am not privileged enough to be so myopic to think only me and my ethnic group matter and any attempt to politely tell me otherwise is “victimization”.

Secondly, you’ve admitted, on the first few posts, actually, and when pressed, that you’re only here to harass us until Mike covers topics favorable to the fascist rule you so vigorously defend at least. You don’t have to dream when you are already doing it.

And lastly, I did say Trump, Desantis. I’ll add the Kochs, the Murdochs, all their “good friends”, Putin, Xi, Modi and every other fucking tinpot dictator who has either enough money or enough pull to get Republicans to commit treason. Republicans don’t question who lets them commit insurrection, as long as they get to do it, after all.

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

Matthew M Bennett says:

Re: Re:

Honestly, I would prefer you not ask for “proof” on the most inane, commonly known stuff and quibble with it in the least intelligible way possible, like claiming Bari Weiss was not a credible source cuz she was a dude who worked at the NY Post. (which no, was not a joke)

If you are going to argue, be smart about it and worth my time. Fuck, if you are gonna ad hominem, which is sad, at least get your facts straight.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
bhull242 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

Honestly, I would prefer you not ask for “proof” on the most inane, commonly known stuff […]

What you call “inane” and “commonly known”, I call “commonly made assertions lacking in evidence”.

[…] and quibble with it in the least intelligible way possible, […]

Your inability to understand English isn’t my fault.

[…] like claiming Bari Weiss was not a credible source cuz she was a dude who worked at the NY Post.

  1. That’s not what I said. I said that working at the NY Post (which I had incorrectly understood to be the position others were taking) could be considered sufficient reason for the others to consider Bari Weiss not a credible source. I also got her gender wrong, but that played no role in my argument.
  2. I already acknowledged that mistake and explained why I made that mistake.
  3. That was neither quibbling nor unintelligible. That’s not what those words mean.

(which no, was not a joke)

I never said it was. I said that my responses to you calling me “Bari Weiss” and variations thereof were jokes. I seriously question if you know what a joke is.

If you are going to argue, be smart about it and worth my time.

That’s always been my goal. You just focus on one single mistake I made on one occasion and use that to dismiss any other argument I make.

Fuck, if you are gonna ad hominem, which is sad, […]

And which I rarely ever do, and I can’t think of any times I did that with you. The bit with Bari Weiss was attempting to explain a potential justification for someone else’s claims.

[…] at least get your facts straight.

I try. I may not have a 100% success rate, but then neither do you. Remember the time you said California lost on the “bees are fish” case?

I’d say we’re even on that in terms of mistakes we agree were mistakes. So, can we please move on?

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

Matthew M Bennett says:

Re: Re: Re:2

What you call “inane” and “commonly known”, I call “commonly made assertions lacking in evidence”.

So you’re wasting everyone’s time then?

Cool, you’re just admitting to wasting my time. So fuck off, dude. Cuz Bari Weiss is female, never worked at NY Post, did work at NYT which it’s not that you didn’t know that (you should have) it’s that you made assumptions without even looking it up and then proceeded to argue with me based on those assumptions.

You are fucking designed, as a person, to waste time.

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

Matthew M Bennett says:

Re: Re: Re:2

That’s always been my goal. You just focus on one single mistake I made on one occasion and use that to dismiss any other argument I make.

Yes, exactly. Because you seem designed to waste time. I’m not “focusing”, it’s just shorthand for why I don’t want to deal with you.

I try. I may not have a 100% success rate, but then neither do you. Remember the time you said California lost on the “bees are fish” case?

The problem is I don’t think you do. And yeah, cuz last I had paid attention to it, they had lost the last case, and the “bees are fish” argument is so dumb I couldn’t possibly imagine they’d win appeal. In fact you were defending the whole thing as reasonable which is just another reason I don’t want to deal with you.

I’d say we’re even on that in terms of mistakes we agree were mistakes. So, can we please move on?

I would not, and no.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3

it’s just shorthand for why I don’t want to deal with you

And yet, here you are. If you really didn’t want to deal with him, you’d have fucked off or at least stopped engaging with him at all. But you don’t, because frankly you’re a gigantic, chickenshit hypocrite. You keep whining and pissing and moaning about how torturous having to deal with anyone else is, but you put yourself through it anyway. At least when I mess with your head I do it with the full intention of making you the punchline of every single joke. On the other hand your own commentary on engaging with anyone makes yourself sound like you’re trying to constantly pass off the experience of being punched repeatedly in the nutsack as a triumphant moment.

Because, really, that’s what you are: a glutton for punishment. Instead of staying on Musk-brand Twitter you’d rather spend your time here – time you have repeatedly insisted that you absolutely hate, that you’ve got better things to be doing – being constantly annoyed, angry, triggered, incensed, and basically always on edge. Like this is the point if you actually had a family they’d be worried about you, but you don’t think much of them either. I’ve seen you call your spouse a “womb donator” on multiple occasions. You really are a bottom bitch boi for Trump.

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

Matthew M Bennett says:

Re:

Bennett has posted more than 300 times (I counted

So that’s sad. Not the posting, that you counted.

and has been flagged for absolutely every one of them. While that percentage of flagging would be a good thing, in a rational world, it’s not only not affecting him, it has dramatically increased his output

Two points:

  1. It’s not just me, it’s literally any even slight conservative viewpoint voiced, at all. I noticed a few that slipped past, and honestly I think it’s just cuz the slopped forehead making most of flags doesn’t have that great a reading comprehension. It has nothing to do with civility, nor the name on the post, it’s literally just any even slightly conservative opinion. I am the majority of the conservative comments, I just think most people think the inmates have taken over the asylum and move on. It’s a complete indictment of the readership here, and what I find funny is that it has NO effect on how many responses I get. Nonetheless it exposes liberals as hateful, gibbering, and rabid.
  2. No, being flagged doesn’t make me post more. Masnick making dumbshit takes, and you guys posting really dumb comments like “Trump is a fascist!” (ironically while expressing totalitarian positions) and “Musk doesn’t know how to run a company!!!” (about one of the most habitually successful people on the planet) just demands a response. …….really you retards are trolling me. No, seriously. Be less dumb and I’ll comment less.

I can no longer participate in any discussion wherein Bennett is to be found.

How the FUCK do you think anyone would notice? You post anonymously, you walnut.

I also counted the number rebuttals that he engendered while demonstrating his inability to recognize reality

Bennett is anathema to rational discussion on TechDirt.

Did you read the quality of those replies? No, I don’t think you did. Most of them are dumbshit like “Said no one not hallucinating” and “whatever, fascist“, or “Terrorist” both of which I find extra inane.

They certainly are not rebuttals. Fuck, I hesitate to call them sentient. Like I don’t think they pass the Turing test, and we have software that actually does, now.

Suffice to say I think I’m smarter than you. Basically all of you, actually. So yeah, when you guys stop saying stupid shit (including Masnick) I’ll quit commenting. Stop trolling me

contributing member of society.

Traditionally this term is applied to someone who is a taxpayer, rather living on the public dole….not to brag but chances are very good I make more money than you. No, I don’t care what alternate definition of “contributing” you have, I don’t care about your shitty opinion.

sumgai (profile) says:

Re: Re: Matthew The Self-Impaler

For the record, and nothing else:

*I can no longer participate in any discussion wherein Bennett is to be found.

How the FUCK do you think anyone would notice? You post anonymously, you walnut.*

Because in their infinite wisdom, Automattic/WordPress deigns to delete my cookie almost every day, sometimes even more often than once a day. That makes signing in a slightly more onerous prospect than simply replying via AC. A walnut I’m not, but lazy I am, yes.

And presuming that your claims that you read everything thoroughly are meritorious, you must admit that I do sign my postings, every time. Like you, I own up to my postings. But push coming to shove, why don’t you have a profile link behind your name? (Or should we all assume that you failed to notice that I took pains to sign in, just for this post?)
[/record]

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

It’s not just me, it’s literally any even slight conservative viewpoint voiced, at all

Wrong, it’s people who act like fucking assholes.

You love to call people every name you can think of in the most derogatory means possible (fucktard) then complain that the “liberals” are the hateful group.

That is why I flag your posts, because you act like a fucking asshole.

If you had anything worthy to discuss, it’s completely overridden by your childish actions and not worth my time.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re:

I’m really liking Ars’ new forum tools, where you can ignore a poster and it not only ignores all their posts, but hides their content when it’s quoted by others.

I didn’t realize how much this speech-poisoning was getting to me until I noted I’m spending more time in Ars forums and less time on Techdirt lately, and it all links directly to that change.

Anyway, I’ll try to do my bit to stop feeding the trolls on here going forward, and add comments related directly to the original content instead of being dragged off-topic by commenters whose sole purpose is to stop people from discussing the original content in any positive manner.

Anathema Device (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

Serious question – is there a reason you ACs can’t get a throwaway email account and sign in like anyone else?

If Mike wanted to track you, he has access to your IP information. Using an email you use nowhere else gives him nothing except the ability to ban certain immature, potty-mouthed children with an abuse fetish.

I appreciate the ability to sign in without a real name. More than that, I don’t want or need, and if it cuts down on the stupidity, I’m happy about it.

Moderation isn’t censorship, as every second post on TD reminds us!

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2

Serious question – is there a reason you ACs can’t get a throwaway email account and sign in like anyone else?

Is there anyway to stop the trolls getting a new email every time they get banned? Unless there is more than a throw away email for identification, there is no advantage to accounts as an anti troll measure.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3

You could minimize that trail… by simply not leaving obvious axes to grind.

You don’t mention your country in half your posts and I’ve found that identifying you is incredibly easy, not helped by the fact that you’re not particularly subtle going about it.

It’s not a criticism of you as a person, I just think you’d be far better served having better opsec, especially given your genuine belief that your government is out to get you, of which I have very little reason to doubt your claim. Any government that doesn’t allow the consumption of marijuana needs to be roundly criticized as anti-progressive.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:4

Any government that doesn’t allow the consumption of marijuana

At the US federal level, marijuana is still a schedule I drug.

The following findings are required for drugs to be placed in this schedule:

1) The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse.
2) The drug or other substance has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.
3) There is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision.

Which is complete and utter bullshit… but still even though I live in Seattle and can buy weed legally, it still can be a federal felony.

Anathema Device (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4

“Any government that doesn’t allow the consumption of marijuana needs to be roundly criticized as anti-progressive.”

Have you met the Singaporean government? A democracy only in name?

The country still has the death penalty for drug dealers. While I think our Singaporean resident has plenty of ways to obfuscate his presence here besides anonymity and no user name, Singapore’s government is very scary and regressive.

Not that America has any reason to be smug, given your current crop of GOP loonies so close to taking power again.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:5

Exactly. Any government that does not support the consumption of drugs needs to be taken out the back and introduced to LGBTQ+ and women as a sign of proper, actual progressiveness and how the human race needs to develop. Conservative nuclear families with a man at the head of the household are an archaic relic from a society that has evolved past the need for straight white men serving at the behest of a faceless corporate machine.

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

Hyman Rosen (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2

I post as signed-out because Masnick sends all of my signed-in posts to moderation, making the resulting conversation feel like communicating with someone on Mars, or worse. Given that it’s not effective at stopping me or anyone else from posting as AC, and given that everyone responds to these posts anyway, the only reason for this moderation is for Masnick to harass people he doesn’t like, just like the flagging system lets commenters harass people they don’t like. But that does not incline me to post less, or to change my views or how I speak about them.

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

Hyman Rosen (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4

The firmness of your belief in an ideology does not make it true, and telling you that the ideology is false does not make it “x-phobic”, a term designed to dismiss dissent as hatred.

It is not antisemitism to declare that the religious beliefs of Jews are false – that there are no gods, that the world was not created, that there was no enslavement or exodus from Egypt, and so on. (And the same for all other religions, of course.) Some Jews may feel personally attacked by such claims, but that doesn’t make them any less true, and does not make hatred the basis of those claims. The same goes for gender ideology. Transwomen are men. To quote an ad truck that was driving around NYC the other day, “Woman is not an idea”. People who support gender ideology may feel personally attacked by those who point out the physical impossibility of their claims, and think that those people hate them for their disorder, but that just isn’t so. What we hate is the attempt to force us to affirm lies and to trample over our own beliefs and practices in the name of those lies.

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

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:6

That sentence doesn’t parse.

I am as convinced as fundamentalist Christians and Muslims that my beliefs about gender ideology are true, yes. But it is not I who am forcefully converting anyone; it is woke gender ideologues who are mutilating children (including the horrific case of a girl who was given a double mastectomy at age 13) and who are ramming their ideology down people’s throats. Trans people who are of age or who have permission of their guardians should be able to get any treatment they wish and comport themselves as they wish. But they should not be permitted to force their way into single-sex spaces for which their bodies disqualify them, nor to have their false ideology taught as the truth in public schools.

Oh, and you know how Stone is always talking about trans people killing themselves if everyone doesn’t give them the affirmation they want? According to the lawsuit filed by that girl above against the hospital and doctors, the mutilators are using that threat of suicide to gaslight parents into going along with gender-destroying treatment by asking them if they would rather have a live son or a dead daughter.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2

I’m mostly lazy. I appreciate TD allows you to comment without going through a registration song and dance (or even provide an e-mail, although I don’t mind doing that so much).

Registration would cull a lot of drive-by posting. Not sure if that’d be good or bad overall, though. Obv, registration could allow pseudonyms; in fact, unless TechDirt did a pretty wild 180 and started demanding proof-of-ID to get an account, it would sort of have to by default; nothing stops someone from lying on an internet signup form, it’s not given under oath.

Anonymous Coward says:

More speech is good for many things, especially resolving potentially defamatory claims from opinions. One thing it’s not good for, is carrying out an on-topic conversation on this blog. The trolls derail everything nowadays and, while dunking on them is funny, it’s gotten stale. I don’t want to have to sift through 300 comments of Matt and replies to Matt to find the ten substantive comments replying to a post about Twitter’s hypocrisies or whatever the topic is, but here we are.

Maybe Techdirt doesn’t want the critical commentary or conversation tho.

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

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

Re: Re:

Everytime you call someone a moron, a mouthbreather, or stupid, we know it’s all projection from a scared, not very bright, angry little child.

You don’t impress anyone by telling, kid. You have to show them. All you’re showing us with remarks like that is that you’re an ableist bigot.

If you want to sit at the big table, you have pull on your big boy pants and behave like a grown up.

Planning to start anytime soon?

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

Matthew M Bennett says:

Re: Re: Re:

You have to show them

You want me to show a negative fact?

ableist bigot.

You said I used homophobic and transphobic insults earlier, and you haven’t apologized for that yet, even though I KNOW you know that must be true.

But “ableist”? Yeah, of course I am. Anyone crying about “ableist” is a worthless person, absolutely fucking making up things to be insulted about so they can die alone with their cats. Which is you right? I try not to be mean about it to actually disabled people, but of course it’s better not to be disabled. That’s what the word “disabled” means. Even disabled people know that.

Jesus fuck, way to nail a coffin in that one, Sheryl, you’re fucking nuts. But congrats, you found a form of supposed “bigotry” (I only use that term oh so lightly) I’m guilty of.

“Ableist”. Fuck damn, amazing.

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

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

None of you mouthbreathers have anything valuable to say. I know, I’ve read them all.

Well then why don’t you go and take your superior self and fuck right off, Matthew?

Rhetorical question, dipshit. We know why you stay.

You’re an asshole. And as an asshole, you’re a contrarian for the sake of being argumentative. You don’t have a point. How could you? You don’t even know what the fuck you’re talking about.

Your criticism of the rest of us might make sense if you had posted it somewhere else. But the fact that you’re posting it here, asshole, is confirmation that you just want to argue about anything and nothing, even the value of the replies you’re desperately seeking.

It’s just you being an asshole. Or as the rest of us call it, ‘Tuesday.’

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

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

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

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2

Lol what mods? Mike doesn’t care. He said earlier he’d rather have the “target practice” in his words. Granted it’s his site and he can do whatever, just don’t count on moderation to be a part of that.

Techdirt can have more perspectives from marginalized folk in tech or they can have the Matts who spew vitriol until only the mainstream white views can tolerate posting. To think they can have both is bullshit, since Matt’s goal is to drive the scapegoats du jour into oblivion. The resulting loss of perspective really blunts the impact of the site.

Add Your Comment

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

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

Comment Options:

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

What's this?

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

Daily Deal: Xbox Game Pass Ultimate 2 Months Subscription
Antisemitic Conspiracy Theorist Who Sued YouTube For 1st Amendment Violations Now Owes YouTube Nearly $40,000
Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Subscribe to Our Newsletter

Get all our posts in your inbox with the Techdirt Daily Newsletter!

We don’t spam. Read our privacy policy for more info.

Ctrl-Alt-Speech

A weekly news podcast from
Mike Masnick & Ben Whitelaw

Subscribe now to Ctrl-Alt-Speech »
Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...