Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
from the let-the-discourse-flow dept
This week, our first place winner on the insightful side is Arianity with a comment about Bezos’s endorsement gambit backfiring:
Trump is a disgusting pile of trash, but it is really funny how he always turns on people who help him. People just lining up to get their faces eaten by leopards, after watching the previous guy get his face eaten, daily. It would be funnier if we weren’t stuck in the same boat with these idiots.
“Donald Trump won’t be satisfied until the Washington Post is full of pro-Trump propaganda and nonsense.”
And then he’ll still throw it under the bus the moment his whims feel like it.
In second place, it’s an anonymous reply to someone defending Trump’s lawsuit against CBS:
Alright. Let’s see every trump interview over his life released in full and uncensored.
For editor’s choice on the insightful side, we start out with an anonymous comment on our post about the need to fight for free speech in Trump’s America:
A quick reminder to conservatives reading this.
William Westmoreland lost his defamation case.
Richard Jewell lost his defamation case.
Nick Sandmann lost his defamation case.
Stop filing dumb lawsuits. You’re only embarrassing yourself.
Next, it’s an anonymous reply to the claim that things were great during Trump’s first term:
… Los Angeles suspending air quality standards so the crematoriums could burn the COVID dead quickly enough, federal law enforcement grabbing American citizens off the streets and into unmarked vans, unauthorized and secret medical procedures on prisoners. Just so much freedom and goodness.
Over on the funny side, our first place winner is a frustrated anonymous response to a troll:
Try not to suck off any fascists on your way to the parking lot.
In second place, it’s That One Guy with another comment about Bezos’s backfire:
Who could have ever seen that coming?
Bezos: But I voiced my support for the Leopards Eating Peoples’ Faces party!
While convicted felon Trump’s attack on the press is disgusting and should be enough to prevent anyone who cares the slightest about the first amendment or free speech from supporting him I have to say there is more than a little schadenfreude to be found in watching the gutless coward Bezos attempt to appease said convicted felon only to immediately have his face on the menu like this.
“The Washington Post and Los Angeles Times, and all these papers. They’re not endorsing anybody. You know what they’re really saying – because they only endorse Democrats – they’re saying this Democrat’s no good. They’re no good. And they think I’m doing a great job. They just don’t want to say it,” he said.
And the cowardice of the american press comes home to roost. They sanewashed his words and actions, treated him as a reasonable person and candidate with positions that deserved to be respected, bent over backwards to give him the benefit of the doubt and it got them… ‘Unless you explicitly support my opponent that means you support me and want to see me elected.’
I’d call it a risky gambit on his part as claiming a fraudulent endorsement already blew up in his face once before but this late in the game and given who he’s talking about? It’s probably a fairly safe lie as they’re not likely to do anything in response.
For editor’s choice on the funny side, pickings are a bit slim — I guess people weren’t in the funniest mood this week (for some reason), and there aren’t many comments with much in the way of funny votes. Still, a quick nod to this anonymous clapback to a trollish request for an explanation:
I have neither the time nor the crayons to explain this to you.
And finally, Stephen T. Stone with a comment about the religious right’s opposition to adult content:
“You get to spend eternity with us!” is not the hard sell for Heaven that conservative Christian assholes think it is.
That’s all for this week, folks!


Comments on “Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt”
The more I read here the more defeated I feel regarding the future of not just section 230, but also adult content on the web.
Sure, it’s not hopeless, but it’s difficult to maintain that hope when you’re surrounded by people who insist it’s pointless.
Re:
Optimism is action; defeatism is inaction. If you want hope, roll up your sleeves and get to work.
Re: Re:
As much as I want to be cheered up by this,
Yes, it ISN’T hopeless and surprisingly I’ve felt less weighed down by anxiety than I used to for some reason.
But like, I don’t know man. Maybe it’s best I just go ignore it all and enjoy whatever time is left.
Re: Re: Re:
Enjoy whatever time’s left with my online friends and communities before it all gets shuttered, that is.
I’ve exchanged emails with some of my friends so, maybe I can still maintain contact in the worst case, hopefully.
Re: Re: Re:
If you have friends in the U.S. that you talk to regularly, you can ask them to do the work that you can’t. You can lack a direct say in American politics and still find a way to have a slight measure of influence.
You’re more than free to give up. But that choice is yours alone to make. Asking for anyone here (including me) to make that choice for you, or validate it, is a fool’s errand.
Re: Re: Re:2
I don’t intend to give up. I’m just starting to think it’s best I focus on something else, since I can’t delay the end of the things I enjoy.
I can hope nothing happens, I can give my friends company, and I can try and have a good time. Lord knows I’ll probably be unable to stop myself from peeking into here still.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2
Not surprised that you’d suggest foreigners influence policy-making and elections in the U.S. just because your preferred candidate lost the election.
Re: Re: Re:3
Not surprised you’d pretend your candidate doesn’t owe millions to foreigners or let them peddle influence via patronizing his failing businesses.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:4
America is for Americans, not globohomo turds.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:5
Trump bends over for Putin. Your authoritarian daddy is a bottom. You’re a cuck for foreign disinformation.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:5
Bye Felicia!
Re: Re: Re:5
If you’re not one of the indigenous tribes that make up what the US is now, go back to where you came from (The black people can stay because they were brought here against their will)!
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:6
The “indigenous tribes” weren’t Americans–plus, we conquered them!
Re: Re: Re:7
They’re still here, you racist fuck! And they’re even more American than your sorry ass ever will be as they make up the largest ethnicity of the armed forces!
Re: Re: Re:8
Not according to these statistics. Way to concede an argument to a troll.
Re: Re: Re:9
Leah meant per capita: https://www.nicoa.org/american-indian-veterans-have-highest-record-of-military-service/
Way to concede an argument to five seconds of googling.
Re: Re: Re:10
Leah did not say per capita, so there is no evidence that she meant that other than your assumption. Way to concede an argument to a lack of reading comprehension.
Re: Re: Re:11
You can infer it pretty easily, as I did. And Leah confirmed it in comments below. How could I possibly have known? Maybe I can read minds?!? Or it was obvious if you spent five seconds thinking about it or googling it.
Ironically, this is your lack of reading comprehension at play.
Re: Re: Re:5
Which you aren’t. You’re the descendant of European invaders and occupiers.
Re: Re: Re:
It’s true that everyone from Hawley to Ossoff has been eager to tear down Section 230. A week ago, Wyden might have been the only senator who would have opposed a 230 repeal. But now the game has changed — it’s gonna be bad all around, for damn sure, but it’s also going to be chaotic. Any bill that makes it to the floor will now be coming right from Elon Musk’s vest pocket. Nearly every Dem senator would be on board with 230 “reform” in principle, but under these circumstances? By way of comparison, KOSA passed the Senate by Assad margins, but would a bill that is seen as a tool for Musk to crush his competitors have the same success?
We’re now in a situation where the courts have been tacking into the “product liability for algorithms” mindset, and suddenly the president’s puppetmaster wants his platform to have no liability at all. Shit’s gonna get weird.
Re: Re: Re:2
I keep getting conflicting opinions on how it’ll go regarding section 230 in particular. Suppose that’s the nature of no one knowing for sure.
Re: Re: Re:2
The problem is that they’re going to have majorities in both houses. Assuming the filibuster goes, they won’t need a single Dem vote anymore. You’re right that ‘The game has changed’- in more ways than one.
Re: Re: Re:3
Majorities, yes.
But barely.
Re: Re: Re:3
I’m hesitant to try and predict whether they will kill the filibuster. The Senate is a strange place, full of people suffering from terminal Senate brain. Maybe they’ll have the votes to do what Sinema and Manchin (and perhaps others behind the scenes) stopped the Democrats from doing. But will Cornyn, Thune, Collins and Murkowski all go along with it?
As for Section 230 specifically, well, there’s certainly a case for pessimism. Brendan Carr wrote a screed railing against it in Project 2025; Vance talked about removing 230 protection from large platforms. But is the thirst for 230 repeal there? I’m not entirely convinced that it is. A lot of the rhetoric and grandstanding feels like a relic of 2020–21, Trumpists being upset that their conspiracy theories were being moderated. That was the drive behind Trump’s anti-230 executive order in May ’20. With Twitter now being Party media, is the motivation still there? What they might want most is to shut down criticism of Twitter, get advertising dollars flowing back into it, put the squeeze on its competitors somehow… An assault on Section 230 certainly could factor into all that, but it might not be the path they go down.
Without much foundation for my guesses, I’ll hazard that the most likely thing we’ll see is another Executive Order that’s as much about pushing a narrative as it is about having concrete effects, and the least likely is a bill that makes it through Congress thanks to a nuked filibuster.
Re: Re: Re:4
I’ve heard that Trump allegedly wants to revise section 230 for “less censorship” purposes or something.
Which, considering how section 230 already works, doesn’t mean much.
Re: Re: Re:
Even when that is true, there’s still value in convincing people otherwise. Nothing is set in stone. 230 originally passed for a reason. Voting or other local actions are important, but convincing others is often the strongest tool you have. It’s a force multiplier. If you can convince just 10 American friends, you’ve done 10x more than any single voter or protestor.
To put it into perspective, historical events like Civil Rights Movement look nice and tidy in history books, but it took over 10 years before the Civil Rights Act passed. It wasn’t fast or easy, it had it’s backslides, and it was going against the consensus.
We can’t make that choice for you. All we can do is point out that there are still things to be done. Honestly? Yeah, it probably is an easier life to just ignore it all. Only you can decide if you can live with being able to make a difference, and choosing not to. Keep in mind, the people currently breaking shit would very much prefer you made their lives easier and didn’t bother.
Also, if you need to take some time off to vent/grieve, the fight will still be there tomorrow. We’re still human.
Re: Re: Re:2
I’m just tired of going day by day with the admittedly crushing anxiety that everything I know of the internet could be gone within the next few years.
Re: Re: Re:3
Well, I do have the comfort that the consequences of a section 230 repeal would be so disasterous it’d nearly force them to walk back the decision not long after, for whatever little comfort that is.
Re: Re: Re:3
you do realize your talking to a troll account right?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:4
Oh piss off, if I was a troll I’d just either be raving off about how we’re all ultra-fucked or sucking up to Trump, Elon or et cetera despite the fact they’d never read these comments.
Re: Re: Re:3
If you were older, you’d have seen this happen before. Repeatedly. Things get bad, things get better, nothing is ever prefect or great.
Now (always) is the time to influence your own age group to grow the fuck up and stop being assholes. Some people can make a career out of it, others operate subtly in indirect ways. It’s unfortunate that prior generations have not kept the fluctuating asshole count lower.
Re: Re: Re:4
Yes, but none of those times have had such a high risk of basic internet freedoms getting lost.
Well, maybe they have. You’re kind of right on the young thing. Only hitting 25 this year and I only really woke up to internet regulation issues like, last year.
You can imagine it’s all more than a little overwhelming.
Re: Re: Re:5
It’s been bad before. It’ll be bad again. Then we’ll get a reprieve until the next time someone tries to ratfuck the internet. We’ve dealt with MPAA and RIAA lawsuits, threats of kicking people offline, porn bans and ID laws, etc.
It’s good to recognize that this is largely out of your control. There’s relief to be had there. It’s not your responsibility to worry about it because that won’t change anything. Educate yourself about what you can do. Research about VPNs and federated open source platforms, disconnect from big corporate platforms that you can’t trust, use proxies, fake email accounts, poison your algorithms, etc. You don’t have to go overboard, but understand your options and their benefits.
And then recognize that despite all the moralistic bullshit that authoritarians spout, monied interests will slow down their progress. The internet is profitable. If you choke it off too much, the billionaires and corporations that fund political campaigns will divert their funding. Some battles will be won for stupid, greedy reasons.
Re: Re: Re:6
Considering the sheer amount of arguments against overturning section 230 got back in 2023 when the option came up before SCOTUS, I guess it’s safe to say the tech industry’s going to rightfully get up in arms if they sense a genuine chance of their economy getting scrambled.
This is one of the few times where I’m glad big tech has so much influence.
Re: Re: Re:6
Worth noting we’re still dealing with some of these, like ID laws.
Granted they tend to get punted out in the US thanks to the constitution, I’ve yet to see the same occur in other countries. Canada and Australia are both cooking some up in the near future, I recall.
No guarantee either one will pass, let alone succeed if it does, but when you’re hit with so many potential tech-crisi at once, it makes your head paint a very bleak and isolated internet of the future.
Re: Re: Re:6
Yep.
Re: Re: Re:5
Focus on one area that concerns you the most, then strive to get your concerns across. You’ll be surprised at the effect you may have.
Re: Re: Re:5
Sure. A lot of that was before the internet. People’s lives hang in the balance. The internet, while awesome, is hardly everything. Not to fault you for your focus, but maybe consider, perhaps without dwelling, wider pictures as well.
Take care.
Re: Re: Re:2
This.
Marvin : [as they are gazing at the wonder of Magrathea] Incredible… it’s even worse than I thought it would be.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
While reading some of the comments here this week, I remembered (and was very pleased) to have heard that Kamala’s campaign cost $1 billion and that they spent so much money on nonsense.
The whole thing makes so much more sense, I think so much better of my fellow man, knowing that Kamala’s campaign was a Great American Scam…
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re:
…It’s funny to think that while Dem elites were screaming hysterically about fascism and Hitler and the end of democracy they were stuffing huge wads of cash in their pockets given to them by credulous affluent libs.
There were probably connected people who made millions from Kamala’s campaign…
Re:
Cute that you don’t mention the other side as if it spent a lot less.
“Overall, the Democratic campaign and pro-Democratic outside groups spent almost $1.8 billion, while the Trump campaign and pro-Republican outside groups spent $1.4 billion.”
We can tell when you’re lying because you’re typing something and hitting Post Comment.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
Hi Anonymous Coward, the difference is that Trump spent 400 million less and won all swing states and the election while Harris spent 400 million more and lost all the swing states and the election. Hope this helps.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:
Oh yeah, also despite raising more than Trump they managed to end their campaign 20 million dollars in debt, with zero ROI because, again, she lost.
Re: Re: Re:2
Read again:
We can’t know what each campaign spent when their spending is combined with the spending of their outside interest groups. What I can tell you is that Trump spent nearly $37,000 dollars on food and beverages from fast food restaurant chains that hardly need the support over two years, whereas Biden spent just a little over $32,000 dollars in the same amount of time.* How’s about that for a whataboutism?
*Source.
Re: Re: Re:
Doh! You didn’t even comprehend the text that was right in front of you. The Harris campaign didn’t spend 1.8 billion. The Trump campaign didn’t spend 1.4 billion. All of the words in the sentences actually mean something. Hope this helps. Except I don’t. It’s delightful to see you expose your incompetence at basic literacy.
Re: Re: Re:
…said the anonymous troll, not realizing the nature of their hypocrisy.
Re: Re: Re:2
I will never get tired of anonymous cowards decrying anonymity.
Re: Re: Re:
Read again:
We can’t know what each campaign spent when their spending is combined with the spending of their outside interest groups. What I can tell you is that Trump spent nearly $37,000 dollars on food and beverages from fast food restaurant chains that hardly need the support over two years, whereas Biden spent just a little over $32,000 dollars in the same amount of time.* How’s about that for a whataboutism?
*Source.
Re: So you have that going for ya
Well son you have managed that you put the imp in impotent.
I don’t get why the editor’s choice for insightful was insightful. Jewell perhaps lost some cases, but he settled one of his cases for half a million (and come on, the guy was wronged. Being falsely fingered as a terrorist is no fun.) And defamation relates to free speech, sure, but the comment didn’t relate much to the post other than that.
Re:
In all these cases, attempts were made at shotgunning defemation cases were more about shutting down speech that vindicating rights. It doesn’t work. Indeed, Mike Masnik of Techdirt coined the phrase describing how it regularly backfires. Editor insightfuls often reinforce a common theme or message of the site, particularly new ways of expressing them.
IN the one and only case that went to court, the statements made about Jewell were ruled to be substantially true, and that no defamation occurred. The court specifically noted that in that specific case the paper had cast doubt about the suspicion of Jewell right next to the reporting the suspicion existed. This fits within the theme of the labelled individuals. Most
if not all of them got settlements. All of them sought to vindicate themselves against a newspaper that stood by its reporting, and all failed when those cases went to court.
That Jewel may have had meritorious cases against some dirt slingers who went above and beyond does not absolve him of his lawsuits against truthful reporting. Some of the settlements may be for papers which went much harder on the accusations, made those accustaions more directly and had merit. But The only case to be decided on the merits found the reporting was truthful, and that the reporting proceeded to question why he was a suspect. The AJC lawsuit was a terrible move for free speech.
Shotgun spewing lawsuits isn’t a good move. Suing everyone, regardless of the specific merits of each case, is bad. Wrong. Anti-free-speech. Jewell was a hero in the moment when the bomb was discovered, and history vindicates that. But it was still truthful the FBI was looking at him. And therefore well founded defemation claims need to be tied to the specifics of the reporting, not simply filed en mass against institutions big enough to pay.
Re:
That’s not actually true. Out of five libel suits filed by Richard Jewell, four of the defendants settled, with The Atlanta-Journal Constitution winning the case against it four years after Jewell’s death.
To funny
I dont think anyone won.
1/3 of the voting public belong to the 2 parties. They selected what the OTHER 2/3 would vote for.
Find me a state that had the most Voting public and I will Bet, it didnt hit 60%.
Every election for over 40 years has Barely gotten over the 50% mark.
I would rather think this is a Vote of NO Confidence, and the USA does not have that. A few other countries DO.
Re:
You could easily google this shit before speculating. It’s like randomly posting, “I don’t think it’s going to rain today,” when you could look out the window and see the monsoon raging outside, much less just listen to the sound of rain.
Re:
Arizona unofficial results right now claim a 73% voter turnout with 99% precincts reporting.
Also of minor note, approximately 37,000 Arizona voters cast a ballot that did not include a vote for President, or voted for someone other than the four candidates on the ballot.
Re: Re: 'Undecideds' still the dumbest people in the country, bar none
Also of minor note, approximately 37,000 Arizona voters cast a ballot that did not include a vote for President, or voted for someone other than the four candidates on the ballot.
That’s not a ‘minor’ note, that’s almost forty-thousand people in that one state who decided that a presidential election was a fitting time to throw a tantrum that would embarrass a toddler.
They could have filled in their ballots and then literally lit them on fire and it would have been just as effective impactful with the added benefit that it would have cost the people counting votes less work.
Re: Re: Re: There are those
that think picking the wrong side, no matter WHO/what, is as bad as picking between 2 evils. Its still evil.
The numbers I stated are true.
And as Pointed out I could look it up.
“In the 2020 presidential election, 66.73% of registered voters in Texas cast a ballot, up from 59.39% in the 2016 election.”
https://www.kxan.com/news/your-local-election-hq/november-2024-turnout-tracker/
29 million population. 4 mill <19.
18 million registered voters
11 million Voted
72% registered
44% Voted.
Of registered Legal age Voters, Based on POPULATION.
Re: Re: Re:
Not to mention the fact that everyone that did this is as responsible for Trump getting back into the Oval Office as everyone that actually voted for him.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
The Trump campaign did a very good job on the cultural war issues.
They made the point that Dem politicians care more about weird niche issues than they cared about most people’s everyday needs and concerns.
Agree or disagree?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re:
Shut up, American First scum!
Re:
It’s a mix of both, really. Yes, the Republicans did make a huge fuss about culture war issues and Democrat positions on those issues, notably on transgender rights. But other than abortion rights, Democrats in general—and Kamala Harris in particular—didn’t actually run on those issues. The GOP effectively did more to paint the Democrats as “being for they/them” (to borrow one of the attack lines I kept hearing in political ads) than the Democrats did, and at least a couple of Democrat lawmakers/pundits have said post-election that, in effect, the Dems should throw trans people to the wolves. Republicans have such a well-organized mediasphere that it basically controls the framing of politics more than the mainstream media does; to accept the idea that Democrats ran campaigns focused mostly (or entirely) on caring about identity politics and culture war issues is to accept a bad-faith framing of those campaigns by liars, grifters, fearmongers, and bigots.
Re: Re:
I’m not even sure if republican voters care THAT much about trans people anymore.
We’ve had at least one case of an openly trans person getting elected in a very red state this election last I checked.
It’d be weirdly funny if a lot of the grift starts dying out because their base just stops caring about it.
Re: Re: Re:
Really? Who was it?
Re: Re: Re:2
Sarah McBride, I think? Maybe it was just the individual state house but, it’s something.
Re: Re: Re:3
I thought Delaware was blue state, which was why I was confused…
Re: Re: Re:3
Sarah McBride was a Democrat, the last I checked. I hardly think she’d win the popular vote in a Red state.
Re: Re: Re:2 UPDATE!!
Maybe you’re thinking of Emma Curtis, the first transgender member of the Lexington, Kentucky city council?
Re: Re: Re:3
Possibly? I think both may be the case of some of the first trans people to be elected in the US.
It’s good either way, I’d say!
Re:
Keep hearing that, disagree. Also the “niche issues” are repeatedly mischaracterized, as well as the party itself, which is hardly on the left of anything. But other people’s niche issues are A-OK because reasons.
Re:
By fanning the flames of cultural wars with far right bigotry. Just sayin’.
Leah Abram said:
Not according to these statistics. Way to concede an argument to a troll.
Re:
Remember, this is “as a percentage of a population”. What I meant to say is that a higher percentage of Native Americans are in the Armed Forces, as there are far more non-native blacks, whites, and latino brown people than there are of Native Americans.
Source: https://teamrubiconusa.org/news-and-stories/native-americans-leave-profound-impact-on-the-military/
Re: Re:
Which is not what you originally asserted. Way to move the goalposts.
Re: Re: Re:
Well, I apologize for misleading you. That’s what I originally meant.
Re: Re: Re:
Not articulating yourself well in the first statement and then being more articulate later is not moving the goalposts. Five seconds of googling would have discovered the missing context.
Re: Re: Re:2
You do know that context is required to search anything, right? Way to tell everyone you lack reading comprehension of your own comments without saying you lack reading comprehension of your own comments.
Re: Re: Re:3
Except I literally searched for what Leah was talking about and found the correct context immediately. It took five seconds. You’re really unfamiliar with googling stuff?
If you google “native american military service,” the first thing you see is the AI blurb: “Native Americans have served in the U.S. military at a higher rate than any other ethnic group.”
And if you don’t trust the AI blurb, you can scroll down and look at the other sources.
The first search result is the US Army Reserve site that states: “Historically, American Indians have the highest record of military service per capita when compared to other ethnic groups.”
Why would you be so confident in your own ignorance?
Re: Re: Re:4
Every accusation a confession.
Have you thought about how much of this is the media?
The media mythologized Trump as a man with business savvy in The Apprentice. And now, when people see Trump, they think of that and the economy.
The media mythologized Musk as a business genius.
The media played down authoritarianism.