Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt

Techdirt

from the conversation-pieces dept

This week, our first place winner is an anonymous comment invoking a famous quote in response to Missouri suing Media Matters:

“Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit:

“There must be in-groups whom the law protectes [sic] but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.”

–Frank Wilhoit

In second place, it’s another anonymous comment, this time about Tennessee’s Senate voting to ban chemtrails:

But if we inject poison into the atmosphere merely as a side effect of making money, that’s still totally cool, right?

For editor’s choice on the insightful side, we’ve got a pair of comments from the same anonymous commenter, making the same point in response to another commenter whose response to our story about Elon Musk’s latest content moderation escapade was “his site, his rules”. That is of course true, but not the point, as the first comment explained:

Yep. And his rules for his site speak volumes about who he is.

…and as the second comment put even more succinctly:

His bar, his Nazis.

Over on the funny side, our first place winner is yet another anonymous comment, this time about a request that right wing trolls show evidence for their bonkers claims:

Dude. Don’t. Last time we asked for evidence, they showed us Hunter Biden’s dick.

In second place, the anonymous streak continues with a comment on our post about the judge slamming Elon Musk for his vexatious SLAPP suit against the Center for Countering Digital Hate, invoking the record of a certain other commenter:

I’ll just leave this here:

Matthew M Bennett August 1, 2023 at 12:32 pm

You don’t understand the law

If CCDH made substantive claims that were not true, especially if it knew them to be untrue or was doing so with a purpose to hurt Twitter (but neither is required) of course that could be the subject of a defamation claim.

But poor research methodology does not violate the law

Strawman detected. Poor research methodology is not “against the law”, but it doesn’t fucking protect you from a defamation suit, either.

So why is this “clearly” a SLAPP lawsuit? Cuz you really don’t like Musk?

Hey, Twitter lost money over the last 5 years it was public. Not defamation, because truth is an absolute defense.

Do you people think Bratty Matty understands the law better than Mike as he claims?

Well, you can judge for yourself by reading the whole thread the quote above was taken from.

For editor’s choice on the insightful side, we’ll throw in one non-anonymous comment this week, with That One Guy offering another response to the call for evidence:

Their girlfriend has all the evidence, you haven’t met her, she goes to another school in Canada.

Last but not least, we’ll let anonymity have the last word with another comment about Elon Musk:

A ten-word short story about this guy’s persecution complex:

I’m being silenced; my merch sales have never been better!

That’s all for this week, folks!