Techdirt: Now With More Free Speech Reporting
from the don't-count-us-out dept
As you are likely aware, we are currently facing a First Amendment fight for our life. I’ve spoken about the chilling effects the lawsuit has been having on our reporting — but also have noted that we are trying to be inspired by this situation to focus more of our reporting efforts on attacks on free speech online, and to tell the stories of those who they’re impacting most. As you may recall, we have already launched the crowdfunding site ISupportJournalism.com to support our ability to continue reporting on these issues, and I’m happy to announce today that we’ve further partnered with the Freedom of the Press Foundation and a group of other companies and organizations to fund more free speech reporting, which will now be included under a new “free speech” tab on the site. Attacks on free speech have been growing, not shrinking, and we need to shine much more light on these attacks, and we’re thrilled to be able to do as much as we can. Our official announcement of the program is here:
For nearly two decades, Techdirt has reported extensively on issues related to free speech on the internet. Much of this coverage has been about laws that help to protect free speech, such as anti-SLAPP laws, intermediary liability protections, and fair use, among others. Over time, we?ve seen countless attempts to silence speech and undermine important protections for free speech, even as new technologies and services have risen up to provide more arenas for free speech to thrive. These attacks on free speech ? including lawsuits, threats, bullying, and legislative proposals ? raise serious concerns about protecting free speech online.
In January of this year, the company behind Techdirt, and two of its employees, were sued for $15 million in a lawsuit that seems specifically designed to either shut down the company or to silence reporting on matters of public interest.
The lawsuit, along with our reporting on many similar stories, motivated the Techdirt team to double down on our coverage of issues related to free speech on the internet, and the ways that it is being attacked. Going through the process ourselves has given us an even deeper appreciation for the First Amendment and the legal protections provided in states with strong anti-SLAPP laws. Similarly, we are more aware than ever before of the myriad ways in which free speech is under attack ? not just directly, but indirectly as well, such as via threats against third parties and platforms to stifle speech.
It has also given us greater recognition that many people ? even journalists, lawyers and politicians ? may not fully understand these issues, what legal protections there are, where those protections are under attack, and where they could be strengthened. Many are also not aware of the massive cost attacks on free speech have, and just how many people they are impacting.
This has inspired us to work with the Freedom of the Press Foundation to put this project together, which will enable us to focus even more reporting resources on covering threats to free speech in the US and around the globe, and to tell the stories of the chilling effects created when free speech is attacked. We are thankful that a number of prominent organizations and foundations have also stepped up to sponsor this effort, including Automattic, the Charles Koch Foundation, Craig Newmark’s CraigConnects and Union Square Ventures*. Between all supporting organizations, more than $250,000 has been committed so far to further reporting on free speech. We hope you?ll look forward to much more reporting on issues related to free speech online.
* Techdirt maintains full editorial control over all content.
Filed Under: first amendment, free speech, reporting
Comments on “Techdirt: Now With More Free Speech Reporting”
“Attacks on free speech have been growing, not shrinking,”
I think this is just like other things in history. It is always under attack, the problem is that enough people have now been brainwashed to think it is better to silence words and/or people they don’t like.
It even exists here at TD where the community itself likes to flag comments that it “disapproves” of. I have even seen the editors tell commenters to leave here and there as well.
Every time we all participate in an effort to silence someone else, we unwittingly contribute to the ideology that “speech should not be free”.
Re: Re:
Liar. Comments are flagged for being abusive/trolling/spam.
Such comments are in themselves an attack on free speech, intended to discourage people from participating.
Re: Re: Re:
Actually, comments are often flagged because they raise unpopular points of view or actively disagree with the original poster.
Some people find the truth abusive, I guess.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Creating straw man arguments and trying to distract from the article are classic trolling behavior and are removed by the community, not TD directly. You have gone too far down the rabbit hole to understand reality anymore so you will just have to take our word for it. You are a troll and no one appreciates your comments or points of view. You are not special and anyone with half a brain could do the same thing, we just recognize that it is abusive and unhelpful to society and we refrain like adults.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
“removed by the community”
They’re not even removed, they’re just marked as something the community have voted not to see in a thread unless they unhide it. He’s literally being told by the people he’s trying to address that they don’t want to hear him, yet he thinks he should have the right to attack them directly without consequences.
To use an analogy – the abusive drunk isn’t being removed from the bar, he’s just being asked to stand near the fire exit so that people don’t have to hear him rant if they don’t want to. Yet, from the way these guys act, you’d think they were being kicked out of the street into the nearest paddy wagon.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
And to further the fact that the posts aren’t gone…
I actually do sometimes unhide those comments out of curiosity when I feel like seeing what trollish post people are replying to.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
Me too, in fact I regularly click each hidden post in turn, especially if it’s a thread I haven’t yet commented in yet (email notifications to threads I have will include hidden posts). It’s rare I see any that are either outright spam or a decent argument that’s being disagreed with, it’s usually some mental case or someone roleplaying that position.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
I like to read flagged posts too, because of what I see here and of course like you out of curiosity.
I am just talking about the psychology that is created by people becoming quick to click the flag button on posts they don’t like.
You can have a few viruses in your body and you will not get sick, but what happens when a whole lot are working in concert? What happens when that group become strong enough to take control? They are already used to suppressing things, it will not be much of a stretch to put in a person that favors their ideals and create a law.
Kinda like now, how national security has become an excuse to suppress freedom of speech. The psychology and logic between the two are one and the same!
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
“I am just talking about the psychology that is created by people becoming quick to click the flag button on posts they don’t like.”
How do you know this is happening, and it’s not simply because what you’re saying is so obviously false they’d rather not have others waste their time?
You seem to be leaping to one conclusion rather quickly. What if you’re wrong?
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
Your bullshit comments are the disease, our spam flags are the antibodies, and the automated system collapsing your trolling is the white blood cells doing their job.
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
^This.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
No you’re flagged because you’re a disingenuous prick who regularly lies about people in the community and not everybody is patient enough to call you out on it directly every time.
Just because you lies your ass off in response before disappearing from the conversation (only to repeat the debunked lies next thread) does not mean you’re being flagged for dissenting.
“Some people find the truth abusive, I guess.”
Not really. Maybe you should try speaking it for once, see what happens.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Calling anyone a “troll” is abusive. But of course it’s okay for Techdirt fanboys to do it. No fanboy EVER gets comments “hidden”, it’s only applied to dissent.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
“Calling anyone a “troll” is abusive”
So is calling someone a “fanboy” in lieu of any cohesive argument against their words. Yet, here you are.
You will also notice that neither I nor the person I was responding to called anyone a troll, yet here you are being offended by it. Interesting, therefore, that being offended by that word is the only thing you had to say in your post.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
“So is calling someone a “fanboy” in lieu of any cohesive argument against their words. Yet, here you are.”
And you do not see your own over the top abusive language here and throughout the replies as a problem? Hypocrisy is nasty vice. The way you treat others does come back to bite you. Remember this when others are rude to you.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Stop calling people names as you whine about being called names. And you might actually have a point, however dubious.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
I argued with Mike over Basic Income on his podcast post on the subject. My comments weren’t hidden, nor was I banned. Mind you, I didn’t make wild accusations or call him names, I merely stated my reasons for disagreeing with him on the subject and engaged in a civil debate.
Rule of thumb: express dissent by all means, but be civil about it. Then your posts won’t be hidden.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
“Rule of thumb: express dissent by all means, but be civil about it. Then your posts won’t be hidden.”
I have not found this to be a the case at all. I have seen civil posts flagged while over the top uncivil posts remain. I think it is very disingenuous to advance the notion that people care all that much about civility, and that being the reason behind a flagged post. I have found the people use the “civility” perception as a fall back to justify their own reasoning behind telling others off.
Look at PaulT’s posts. They are fairly colorful in presentation. What is the over and under on any of those being flagged?
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
For all his colorful language, Paul makes genuine and sincere arguments. People like MyNameHere and the anonymous SovCit a little further down prefer to make disingenuous arguments, often with little connection to facts or reality, and wait for their comments to be hidden so they can whine about “censorship”.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Calling someone a “disingenuous prick” should be something that is flagged. Nobody else way calling anyone names until you showed up.
Will the community act to flag the aggressor?
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
We can dither on whether “prick” was appropriate, but labelling you “disingenuous” is certainly worth a few insightful votes.
Re: Re: Re:3 disingenuous prick
I have only commented once on Techdirt since December 2015 although I read and document some articles. The commentator MyNameHere is correct in that dissenting views are hidden. I admire his tenacity because he is regularly the recipient of denigration and abuse in the comments.
I have one question. Does anyone think that leaving comments unhidden that a woman is a ‘cunt’, and comments referring to people as loons and that falsely describe them as criminals is an exemplar of ‘free speech’?
Re: Re: Re:4 disingenuous prick
And you’re back, despite promising never to show up again after haughtily prancing off into the sunset. Is there a spambot support group you regularly attend?
Re: Re: Re:5 disingenuous prick
Oh dear, lol. The name didn’t ring a bell, but after a quick search, I can see that they’re even lying about the number of times they commented here. Good catch.
Of course, they’ll claim that the person posting on other dates wasn’t really them, blah, blah…
Re: Re: Re:5 disingenuous prick
Did you miss a word from your handle? ‘That’ as in ‘That Anonymous Coward’? If not then I swear he has a clone – lol. That Anonymous Coward shows quite a brilliant mastery of the art of sarcasm in his writing and has had me in stitches with some of his comments. They really are ingeniously funny :).
Re: Re: Re:4 disingenuous prick
Hmmm… “I read this site regularly but have only commented once and agree wholeheartedly with the known troll, so much in fact that I’ve pasted the same comment twice”
Call me suspicious, but I find that less than convincing.
“I have one question.”
I have one question – where has that word been used by anyone but you, and in what context? (OK that was 2 questions, but you understand). I don’t see it.
Re: Re: Re:5 disingenuous prick
My apologies, I posted the comment and was not sure if it would be posted hence the 2 attempts. In between times I was trying to organise dinner.
But irrespective of this, to answer your question Paul T, the reference to me as a cunt or c*&^ can be found on this post on Dec 1 2015 at 2.18 pm
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20151201/01513032951/our-response-to-latest-ridiculous-legal-threat-against-us-milorad-trkulja-can-go-pound-sand.shtml
And on this posted on 9 February 2017 at 6.45 am
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20170206/12581736646/australian-guy-demands-techdirt-story-be-blocked-australia-over-comments.shtml
I think there may be one or two other references about me using that word. But you have made your point Paul T so thank you for that.
Re: Re: Re:6 disingenuous prick
“the reference to me as a cunt or c*&^ can be found on this post on Dec 1 2015 at 2.18 pm”
Hmmm… The comments specifically state that they’re referring to a man named Milorad or Michael Trkulja, but you claim to be Dr Janice Duffy. There’s something not lining up here. Are you admitting that you are using both names yourself, or did you just confuse the target of the insult?
I’d also note that the comment is presented in a joking manner, and that it’s not hidden because it has been voted “funny” and not reported (as can be seen by the LOL icon). It’s also worth noting that as a self-proclaimed Australian and the comment being targeted at an apparent male, it is roughly par for the course for an abrasive joke coming from the Aussie sense of humour. There’s a lot of media out there you can look at if you aren’t familiar with this kind of humour, but it’s not for the thin-skinned.
You may or may not agree with that type of humour, but it clearly wasn’t meant as a misogynistic attack.
“And on this posted on 9 February 2017 at 6.45 am”
Meh, this is less defensible, but I’d say it’s clearly riffing on the previous comment, although now targeted at an apparent female so a little less in the acceptable range (though still questionable as to whether the comment is serious)
Basically, I’d say that the reason these weren’t hidden is that they weren’t being parsed as real personal attacks, but rather as off-colour jokes. There’s no hypocrisy displayed here.
“I think there may be one or two other references about me using that word. But you have made your point Paul T so thank you for that.”
No problem. If you’re going to refer to things that have happened in the past, it’s always worth telling people what it is you’re referring to, or at least be more specific. I believe I remember reading both articles but the names involved did not stick in my mind, and being one of the more active members here, I’d wager that if I didn’t recall then the vast majority of people here had no clue what you were referring to.
Re: Re: Re:7 disingenuous prick
Paul, read ALL of the comments in context. Please do not accuse me of being Trkulja because I am not him. I have no association with Trkulja. Masnick referenced me in his article, incorrectly, His implication and intention was clear as was his reference in the article about Mike Roberts.
But this is not surprising since Masnick has a way of embellishing what he perceives to be the ‘facts’- which is why he is being sued!
There is NOTHING defensible about referring to women with that term. However, there are other references to me using that word that have remained unreported and have been on the posts for some considerable time. They will be evidence.
With a bit of luck this website will disappear into the Wayback machine soon and then all the references to me as a ‘cunt’ and a criminal will go away!
Re: Re: Re:8 disingenuous prick
“Paul, read ALL of the comments in context”
Please read the comment below the one you responded to. I missed the direct reference to you in the final sentence, so I went on the fact that I thought that Trkulja was the only person being referred to. I apologise for the assumptions I made based on this incorrect fact.
“But this is not surprising since Masnick has a way of embellishing what he perceives to be the ‘facts’- which is why he is being sued!”
No, he’s being sued because a fraud and a liar doesn’t like being noted as a fraud and a liar on the eve on him attempting political office, which he’s basing largely on the reputation gained from people believing his proven fraud and lies. Plus, he has a billionaire backer who already used him as backup ammunition against Gawker, and now seems to be attempting to shut down any site that dared criticise him.
“However, there are other references to me using that word that have remained unreported and have been on the posts for some considerable time.”
They only get hidden if they are voted on. Not everybody who reads a comment will vote, and the readership for each article will decrease rapidly over time.
“They will be evidence.”
…of what? Are you going to try suing as well? If so, you might want to finally understand that the comments have nothing to do with the people who operate this site, and that lack of reporting does not mean some kind of general acceptance of the comments. Perhaps nobody read them?
Again – the fact that a comment remains unhidden simply means that over the lifetime of the article a number less than X registered users decided to click “report”. That’s it, it means absolutely nothing else.
“With a bit of luck this website will disappear into the Wayback machine soon and then all the references to me as a ‘cunt’ and a criminal will go away!”
Sorry, they will be recorded for posterity, along with everything else on there. Including your overwrought response to the comments that I had to ask you to identify so that people knew what you were complaining about.
Just a last quick observation – in reading your comments on this article, I believe I’ve seen the word used by you more than I’ve ever seen it used by other people. I probably haven’t read every article or comment thread you’re thinking of, but it’s worth noting that you are the person I’ve seen use the word the most.
Re: Re: Re:9 disingenuous prick
No, I have NEVER used that word (cunt) to describe anyone – nor would I ever – I just reported the word used about me.
I do admit to using the word ‘dickhead’-once – lol! but hey I am Australian.
As for ‘overwrought’, well I think being referred to as a wh&^% and a C*&^%, loon, vexatious litigant, stalker and a myriad of other derogatory terms plus being falsely accused of being a criminal involved in reputation management extortion would be distressing to anyone. Don’t you think?
You might like to take a look at my blog because I have documented some of the abuse-or not – whatever.
Like I said, I DO read and document some of articles, including the hidden and not hidden comments but there is nothing wrong with that, is there?
As for legal action? No I cannot sue Techdirt, neither would I try.
Thank you Paul for your attention to this. You have been very helpfull.
Re: Re: Re:10 disingenuous prick
“No, I have NEVER used that word (cunt) to describe anyone – nor would I ever – I just reported the word used about me. “
No, but you’ve typed it more times in this thread than I’ve ever seen it used before on this site. That was my point.
“As for ‘overwrought’, well I think being referred to as a wh&^% and a C*&^%, loon, vexatious litigant, stalker and a myriad of other derogatory terms plus being falsely accused of being a criminal involved in reputation management extortion would be distressing to anyone”
Probably. I still don’t know what you’re actually referring to, however, since I don’t have the same encyclopedic memory of them as you do. In fact, it’s likely that I’ve never read the things you’re so upset about.
“You might like to take a look at my blog because I have documented some of the abuse-or not – whatever.”
Do you have a link to an example? I’m sorry, you obviously have some very specific things you have in your head that have upset you, but you are refusing to let anyone else see what it is you’re thinking of.
Even so, the fact that a (presumably) anonymous commenter on this site has used a word or claim against you does not either implicate the site owners, nor imply any hypocrisy on the part of other commenters if they have not voted to hide the comment. As I said, it’s just as likely that the vast majority have never read the comments that so upset you.
“As for legal action? No I cannot sue Techdirt, neither would I try. “
Then what was your statement that “they will be evidence” referring to. Evidence of what and in which capacity?
Re: Re: Re:11 disingenuous prick
Janice Duffy seems have a very efficient paradox-absorbing crumple zones, if you ask my opinion.
She constantly whines when anyone uses speech to counter her rhetoric, but seems to feel she has the right say whatever she wants. On her blog are many examples of her using somewhat derogatory terms like "goons" &"cronies" to describe commenters here on Techdirt. She has repeatedly made unfounded statements accusing Mike & Techdirt of conspiring with Ripoffreports, Google & Youtube. She has also made many unfounded statements stating that Mike is/was somehow secretly directing his readers/commenters to attack her personally.
Very hypocritical in my eyes. The phrase "Can dish it out, but can’t take it" comes to mind.
On an aside, one of the comments she feels is "abusive" is from me, where all I was doing was speculating how well it would be received in Australia if Google pulled it’s services due to increased liability as a result of her court case:
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20151028/09424232657/right-to-be-forgotten-now-lives-australia-court-says-google-is-publisher-material-it-links-to.shtml#c363
Re: Re: Re:12 disingenuous prick
Also, for your reading pleasure:
This is a Storify of Duffy defaming a writer who had the audacity to analyze and write about the Australian Google decision. (bonus – there are some tweets from Mike, Popehat and a couple of other people you know in there)
https://storify.com/AndresGuadamuz/yet-another-dr-duffy-storify
(This is part 4 of 4 – be sure to read through the first three parts)
Re: Re: Re:13 disingenuous prick
I asked Guadamuz if he would read all the evidence in the trial before imputing that I should have lost the case on the defence of truth. He refused. I have a post on my blog about it. Yes there are comments from Masnick et al but that just proves my points.
But you were right, I was pilloried, threatened, rediculed and intimidated- all in the name of free speech! You all must be so proud! I don’t intend to make anymore comments on this post. Some have been held for moderation- censorship?
Re: Re: Re:14 disingenuous prick
I was merely pointing out that you have a pretty long history of doing the exact same things you accuse everyone else of doing. You know, glass houses….
You seem to believe that free speech is only for speech you agree with and I find that to be reprehensible. It’s the indefensible position of a weak minded person. Just my 2 cents.
Re: Re: Re:15 disingenuous prick
No I do not have a history of doing the exact same things Gwiz. In 2015 I responded to the ridicule and outright abuse meted out by Techdirt, Guadamuz and others and then I walked away. During that time comments were published stating that I am a criminal and involved in extortion and reputation management by a Ripoff Report employee who has just been handed a $60 million judgement for defamation on that website for which he was paid by the owner. I did not reference anyone who had not attacked me. I did not respond after December 2015 on Techdirt until threats and attempts at intimidation were sent to me personally via my blog in 2017.
I do NOT agree that free speech is a licence to defame and hurt people, and I certainly do not think that free speech is only applicable to my viewpoints. In fact my personal opinions are diverse on many issues and cover the spectrum from left wing to conservative. But I have made a choice to stand up to it because I was given no other option because the abuse did not stop! The tipping point was when threats were sent to my blog and even placed in my letterbox recently.
I do think Techdirt has a ‘cult’ of ‘goons’ as evidenced by the threats and ridicule aimed at me and others. I do have a lot of respect for Wendy’s thinking, although I disagree on some of her views. I am going to try and address this on my blog simply to give someone who mind that I do admire the time it deserves. Wendy mentioned that I read her blog and I do because I am interested in what she has to say on a number of issues. I find her thinking to be quite brilliant on many issues although I do not agree with SOME of her opinions and I certainly do not think that free speech in an inalienable right. After a couple of initial histrionic exchanges on both sides I decided to actually read her viewpoint on a number of issues and found them to be particularly thoughtfull and enlightening.
As far as the original posts on Ripoff Report are concerned I, like 8 million others, reported a scam. It is important to note that in that entire debacle, I was the only person who was attacked using my real identity. Everyone else, including the scams that I reported, hid behind anonymity. I was not reporting people-just profiles that were and still are scamming vulnerable people and I did this in good faith.
The reality is that I got sick, I got conned and I got over it and formed a support group to help others in the same position. That was the reason I was pilloried on Ripoff Report – because the scammers were losing their ‘cash cows’ when they joined the support group. This website is an extortion racket that is enabled by it’s high Google page rank. It is not a crime to be ill or vulnerable but it is to exploit those who are and that is why I support amending section 230: It is used to exploit vulnerable people!
This was not a situation that I wanted but it is what it is and I cannot change it. I did not ‘start’ this on Techdirt. I did get upset at being ridiculed and with good reason. Firstly, no-one likes public ridicule and at the time I had just been through a harrowing Supreme Court trial that was, according to the Justice in his costs decision, unnecessary. Had the posts been removed I would have moved on with my life. Had I not been attacked on Techdirt I would not written anything about it.
Honestly, I think that the denigration of people with opposing views on Techdirt is not doing the continuity of the website any favours. It certainly does not progress the cause of free speech. Whatever you all think about me, if you step outside the mindset that appears to beset Techdirt and look objectively at the commentary, the regular pillorying of dissenters really is not a good look.
Finally, because you will obviously pick this up, I did say my last comment on this post would be my last. But think about it. The fact that I am replying to you rather than resorting to insults is an indiction of respect.
As for your description of me as ‘weak minded’ that is your opinion and you are entitled to it although I doubt whether too many others would act differently when there life and ability to work was destroyed. But there is a big difference with describing someone in that manner and falsely stating that they are a criminal, a loon, vexatious litigant and c%^&! How many employers will take a chance to employ me with statements that I am a criminal prominently displayed on page 1 of Google? Finally, most commentators are anonymous here. I can tell you that it takes a lot of fortitude to survive what I have been through for almost a decade now. It does not matter to me that you disagree Gwiz. I am not going to trash even your profile, nor those regular commentators who are not anonymous for publishing mere insults. However, perpetrating the publication of false statements that I am a criminal or that I was guilty of criminal actions (in that I was not defamed) is a whole different matter and I intend to stand up for myself.
Re: Re: Re:16 disingenuous prick
Shot: “No I do not have a history of doing the exact same things Gwiz”
Shot 2: “During that time comments were published stating that I am a criminal and involved in extortion”
And… chaser: “This website is an extortion racket”
Re: Re: Re:16 disingenuous prick
Do you want to know a fun fact? Your reputation isn’t based on how you perceive things, it’s based on how everyone else perceives you.
The way I perceive it is that Techdirt’s original article and Guadamuz’s piece did not ridicule or abuse you at all. They simple stated their opinion that you suing a third party for the actions of someone else is bad legal precedence. Your responses to these, on the other hand, were filled with all sorts of threats, ridicule and defamation.
Do you not see the hypocrisy in that?
Re: Re: Re:13 disingenuous prick
Thanks for that storify article… going to be of tremendous help if someone keeps up the inane madness that they are currently trying to do
Re: Re: Re:8 The irony, how Janice Duffy and Michael Roberts have been warning the world about dangers of cyber-bullying while being the primary perpetrators of it.
Facts don’t care about your feelings, Duffy.
RED FLAGS EVERYWHERE: Serial defamer Duffy, routinely and wilfully publishes false statement of facts designed to destroy people’s professional and personal lives in the EXACT fashion for which she sued Google.
Re: Re: Re:6 disingenuous prick
Wait… I didn’t notice that last direct reference to you personally. Granted, that’s not really acceptable. I’ve clicked report now to indicate this. I had not done so before because I had not seen it before, to the best of my knowledge, I expect the same is true of most other commenters.
Re: Re: Re:7 disingenuous prick
Paul T, I posted links but the comment was held for moderation as was the comment I posted about the threats of harm (rape & violence) and an attempt to intimidate me that came from Techdirt followers.
Some examples are on my blog. You can read them or not. I am not fussed. They are in the book. I will say that the attacks were NOT a joke to me and caused sognificant distress. One comment pointed out that no-one on Techdirt cared if they humiliated me and of course that is true.
You did not state whether you thought it was permissable to falaely accuse people of crimes.
I did walk away and try to ignore at but the Techdirt followers came after me so I chose to stand up and will continue to do so- but not on this site.
Re: Re: Re:8 disingenuous prick
“Paul T, I posted links but the comment was held for moderation”
Yes, this will often happen if you post links without having a logged in account. It’s an obvious trigger for the site’s spam filter. I’m sure it will be accepted once a human has seen it in the spam queue.
“the comment I posted about the threats of harm (rape & violence) and an attempt to intimidate me that came from Techdirt followers.”
Now, that’s the sort of thing I’m talking about needing evidence for. If you can’t post a link, why not a term I can search for in Google to get to the page you’re referring to?
I will say that on the evidence so far you don’t seem to understand the difference between off-colour jokes, references to pop culture and actual threats, but I would have to see what you’re talking about before I can make a judgement. What I will say is that I’ve never seen a serious threat posted here. That doesn’t mean it didn’t happen, I just need to see it in context.
“You did not state whether you thought it was permissable to falaely accuse people of crimes.”
No, it’s not. However, wording, context and other things matter. Again, I would have to see the context before I can understand a specific incident.
“I did walk away and try to ignore at but the Techdirt followers came after me so I chose to stand up and will continue to do so- but not on this site.”
Serious question – how do you know they’re “Techdirt followers”? You are making a serious accusation yourself, you actually claim there’s a cult of Techdirt readers who are conspiring to attack you. I need evidence before I believe this, and as the accuser it is your job to provide it.
Re: Re: Re:6 disingenuous prick
I wasn’t here in 2015, but for the record I did click the Flag button on that 2017 comment.
Re: Re: Re:4 disingenuous prick
Dr. Duffy, I dissent and my views aren’t hidden because I don’t make wild accusations against people, I just argue my point.
Does anyone think that leaving comments unhidden that a woman is a ‘cunt’, and comments referring to people as loons and that falsely describe them as criminals is an exemplar of ‘free speech’?
Yes. It’s mean speech. It’s rude speech, and no doubt unwanted speech by the target of the speech (you should see what I’ve been called and accused of. Wait…), but it is free speech. So, then, what do we do about it? I presume there’s a valid reason as to why I’ve not had an answer to the question "How many clicks does it take to get a post hidden?" but that’s a moot point: comments are hidden by the COMMUNITY. If they don’t want to see the comment, it is replaced by a greyed-out link. If I want to see the comment for myself to determine whether or not it’s worth reading, I can click on the link.
WARNING: UNWANTED SPEECH
It is nobody’s job to hide speech that targets or offends a particular individual. I click the report button on principle but unless enough of the others to, it’ll stay.
"Loon" is a pejorative. It’s not nice to be on the receiving end, and I do sympathise with you for having suffered so. It may be worth asking yourself what the commenters are complaining about; a change in your behaviour might influence theirs. I’ve had to change mine; I’m opinionated but now I’m more open to new ideas. I defend my opinions using logic rather than emotional arguments. This has proven beneficial as the effects of being made to change the way I think affect the way I interact with other people at home and at work as well as online.
I myself have been falsely accused of being involved in criminal behaviour; this resulted in my having to explain myself to my employers all for the sake of a drama troll’s idea of a joke. Have you noticed how I handled it? Basically, I took my own advice and since then I have actually been promoted.
I know you read my blog, On t’internet, so you know I’ve struggled with some of the more outrageous aspects of free speech, particularly where unwanted speech is concerned. However, in my personal experience, liars gonna lie; the question is, when people check you out, what will they find on your side of the story? People checking me out find that I’m curious, creative, opinionated, a bit of a smart alec, and I’m fascinated by politics and the internet. Why? Because that is how I present myself in my attitude and actions.
Free speech, then, is not about being nice, it’s about being able to say what you want without being dragged off to a gulag for saying it. Does it have consequences? Yes. Do you have a right to be heard? No. Should people be able to ignore or skip over comments they don’t want to read? Yes. Should people be nicer to each other online? Well, I think so, but the value (which is hard to see sometimes) in allowing mean speech is that meanness is in the eye of the beholder; TD is full of examples of reasonable criticism being silenced because the target thereof didn’t like it. We can’t seem to chuck out the bathwater without sending Baby off with it, so yeah, we have to put up with the existence of speech we don’t like to protect the freedom of our own right to speak.
Re: Re: Re:5 disingenuous prick
Wendy, I have responded in detail on my blog simply because I think your comments are worth more than a few lines. I also think that you are missing the point-and I say that with respect.
http://drjaniceduffy.com/2017/08/response-to-wendy-cockcroft/
Re: Re: Re:6 disingenuous prick
I do have a lot of respect for Wendy’s thinking, although I disagree on some of her views. I am going to try and address this on my blog simply to give someone who mind that I do admire the time it deserves. Wendy mentioned that I read her blog and I do because I am interested in what she has to say on a number of issues. I find her thinking to be quite brilliant on many issues although I do not agree with SOME of her opinions and I certainly do not think that free speech in an inalienable right. After a couple of initial histrionic exchanges on both sides I decided to actually read her viewpoint on a number of issues and found them to be particularly thoughtfull and enlightening.
Aw, shucks! Thank you, Dr. Duffy. 🙂
Quite apart from the ridicule levelled at me since June 2015 on Techdirt, there are false accusations that I am involved in reputation management and extortion scheme posted by, yes, a Ripoff Report employee. I did ask for at least the comments that I am a criminal to be removed but was told NO by Masnick and Cushing.
That would be the work of the drama troll who repeatedly targeted both of us. As I’ve pointed out, lies don’t harm your reputation if your attitude and actions display a different person to the one presented by the liar. I’d be surprised if anyone took the allegations seriously. As for Mike and Tim, they get spam comments on TD all the time. The community moderation tool saves them the trouble of deleting unwanted posts (can you imagine how much time they’d have to spend hitting the delete button over and over again if they had a policy of removing such posts?). If they did remove the posts you didn’t like, they’d have to do the same for other people. As I said, the spam posts shouldn’t bother you. I don’t believe you’re involved in a ROR scam to hold reputations to ransom and I don’t think anybody else does either. As I always say, the more histrionic the assertion, the less we should believe it. Back it or sack it.
RE: your comments about the impact of your conduct on your situation, our experiences and perceptions differ.
RE: ROR, I agree with your assessment of it.
RE: the threats, etc., we have a lot of trolls on TD. They’re basically parasites with too much time on their hands. TD staff have no control or influence over them.
RE: Criticism; our experiences and perceptions differ.
We can in some respect choose to define our online identity.
Ehhh… not quite. As I’ve said before, comments made about you by others causes people to check you out to see your side of the story and to find out who you really are. We can choose how to present ourselves; our attitude and actions need to line up with the image we want others to have of us. Then, when some horrible trolls try to wreck our reputations, it doesn’t work.
Wendy, I did not choose this path but I cannot change the past and even when I walk away from the Techdirt and Ripoff Report goons they come after me so I may as well stand up.
The only way to win against them is not to play. Don’t react, just block and ignore. I know how hard that is, but it’s worth it.
I and we do NOT have to put up with speech we do not like to enable free speech. That was never the intention of the doctrine of free speech. It is not an inalienable right-but one that is recognised only if it does not impinge on other rights.
Okay… even if that were true (even on principle alone, not in law) those rights are still in the eye of the beholder.
Techdirt and Ripoff Report, by virtue of their ‘Google power’, have the ability to break people and therein lies the crux of the issue. This is not an exercise of free speech but an abuse of it for their own personal gain-profit!
They are different entities altogether. Mike has criticised ROR before now. ROR can only "break" people if you take it seriously. I posted rebuttals to the allegations made about me, slagged off ROR using their own email to me, and moved on. I’ve had trolls come after me a few times since then and on a couple of occasions I took the bait (bad move!). I pushed back by trolling the troll (sorry I involved you in that), which encouraged him to reveal himself, contradict himself, and therefore clear my name.
In your situtation you need to get away from the internet, clear your head, then make a plan for how to deal with it. I’ve posted tons of advice for people who are in an e-mess under the "Reputation" tag on my blog. Even if it seems like sheer insanity, follow the advice. Basically, present yourself as a calm and reasonable person, not an angry one. Don’t use "angry" words. Don’t react to provocation no matter what. Don’t lash out at critics, even if they’re really harsh. Sounds crazy, right? But that’s what I do. And what do you think of me? "A little misguided at times but means well," if I read between the lines. I can live with that. 🙂 It seems to be what many people think and that’s okay.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
I’m sorry that you’re so offended by the correct terminology for you. Is there some other less offensive version you’d like me to use when describing your disingenuousness and your prickiness?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Actually, comments are often flagged because they raise untruthful points of view or actively lie about the original poster.
Some people find the trolls abusive, I guess."
FTFY
Re: Re: Re: Re:
“Some people find the truth abusive, I guess.”
Not sure you know what “the truth” means. The truth can refer to what a person believes to be true even though it may be factually incorrect.
Others abuse the “truth” in order to twist public perception of their pet project, but they do not consider themselves to be liars. There are many forms of lies and many more ways to wiggle out of the appearance of lying, I imagine you are well versed in these methods.
Can an unpopular point be attributed to outright bigotry? Many people would say yes, I imagine you say no. What you see as perfectly fine, others see as unacceptable. People are different and have different points of view … blah blah … why do you want everyone to be the same? Would be kinda boring no?
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
To wit: Shiva Ayyadurai.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Insightful or funny…….
…….have one of each.
Re: Re: Re: disingenuous prick
I have only commented once on Techdirt since December 2015 although I read and document some articles. MyNameHere is correct in that dissenting views are hidden. I admire his tenacity because he is regularly the recipient of denigration and abuse in the comments.
I have one question. Does anyone think that leaving comments unhidden that a woman is a ‘cunt’, and comments referring to people as loons and that falsely describe them as criminals is an exemplar of ‘free speech’?
Re: Re: Re:2 disingenuous prick
Please provide a link to the comment with cunt in it so we can view it in context
Re: Re: Re:3 disingenuous prick
http://drjaniceduffy.com/2017/04/abusive-comments-on-techdirt/
http://drjaniceduffy.com/2017/04/more-abuse-from-techdirt/
http://drjaniceduffy.com/2017/05/dealing-with-cyber-abuse-in-australia/
Once the threats were actually sent to my blog I decided to start publishing them. Oh and one was put in my letterbox a couple of weeks and it mentioned Techdirt and Masnick.
Actually that really terrified me and still does because it said I was going to be ‘done slowly’, that ‘my mutt’ was going first, and it included threats about someone else who is critical of Techdirt. I have not published that-it is with the police.
So, Techdirt has done a really good job of intimidating and scaring me. you all must be so proud!
Re: Re: Re:4 disingenuous prick
Fact: Trolls have targeted you.
Not fact: TD is responsible for this.
It’s horrible that this is happening but, as crazy as it sounds, if you stopped rising to the bait and lashing out, it would eventually stop because the trolls wouldn’t be getting any entertainment from you.
I’ve got one right here, right now, accusing me of all sorts. Notice that I don’t respond to him. I’m not going to. Why? Nobody takes him seriously.
Re: Re: Re:5 disingenuous prick
Wendy, I tried to firstly ignore the RoR postings and then to get them removed. I tried to ignore the Techdirt comments (specifically that I am a criminal) asked for them to he removed, tried to ignore them again and then, when they came at me on my blog, decided to stand up. In fact yet another attempt to intimidate me was sent to my blog yesterday. It was anonymous and didn’t mention Techdirt (as did previous communications to my blog & the threats placed in my letterbox) so I can’t say for sure, but the timing is suspicious. Needless to say this one didn’t work.
Whatever I did or not do accusations of criminal activity would and do severely compromise my chances of ever working in health research because false imputations of criminal activity preclude me from getting any work. No one would employ me and employers do search online.
It has reached the point that I would rather take the chance of dying on my feet than live on my knees and that is just the way it is for my personal situation. That is not to say that I don’t think your advice is very good- I do. But once the false accusations of criminal conduct were published it changed everything. I may have to try and take legal action to get the accusations countered.
I don’t think you are misguided at all. That is not a word thst I would ever use to describe you ;). I think you are insightfull and correct on most of your well thought out opinions. I think you are wrong on free speech (and I say that with the greatest respect). I have taken a PDF of your blog post and I want to think through it before I respond. I am a bit tired at the moment (because my dad is not well and I am his carer so I have had a couple of nights with not much sleep) but I would welcome your comments on my response.
Wendy, I’ll buzz you on twitter when I have got my head around the points that you have made and responded and hopefully you can find the time to counter them. Neither of us will change our minds but that is not the issue purpose or intent :).
Re: Re: Re:
Flagging comments is exactly a form of speech. The flagged comments aren’t destroyed.
But some people like to whinge on about their one star ratings.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, they aren’t destroyed, but they are put on a lower level and thus treated unequally. That is a form of censorship, like it or not.
Look at the posts flagged in this discussion. Aside from PaulT calling people names, the rest are perfectly normal and acceptable ranges of opinions. But some people feel the need to flag anything they don’t agree with.
The difference is subtle, but huge at the same time. Can you imagine if everything you posted required extra clicks to be read? Would you think that fair or equal?
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
I usually don’t flag comments unless they are outright spam, and it is true that I sometimes disagree with what ends up flagged on this site. Thus I agree with you that I wouldn’t flag most of the comments above that have been flagged in this thread.
Still, people have the right to think different than me, and as orbitalinsertion said, flagging comments is a form of speech (yes, I think you both have a point). And the flagged comments don’t disappear. That’s what I actually find so refreshing about this site. The comments aren’t removed. On top of that, compared to other places, there isn’t many outright abusive comments with offensive language, and if someone can’t take a bit of name-calling or a bad word here or there, they shouldn’t be using the internet (I was under the impression this site was for adults).
If a comment is a rant, a lie, a debunked argument or has no arguments, people will usually flag it here ("people" as in "the community" and not the site staff, that’s an important distinction that some seem to forget). But it’s true that often they will also flag comments they disagree with or are annoyed by. If they’re made by the same person, it will often happen down the entire thread of replies, no matter what is in those comments. It feels like some will on principle flag comments made by people they don’t like or that annoyed them previously. Those things do happen here, that’s human nature. I think it’s unavoidable, instead it’s important how you deal with it, and techdirt does quite a good job here (if you disagree, feel free to provide a better solution instead of ranting how bad they are). People aren’t blocked here, and I’ve also seen instances when someone that was considered a persistent troll suddenly made a comment here that made sense and it was left visible, even if their take on things was unpopular.
Also, I think your statement that flagged comments "are treated unequally" doesn’t exactly mean what you think it means. A lot of people here (me too) admit that they read flagged comments out of sort of morbid curiosity ("huh, it’s flagged, why was it flagged?") which in many cases actually makes the flagged comments more visible that the regular ones.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
“No, they aren’t destroyed, but they are put on a lower level and thus treated unequally.”
A level that many deserve. Instead of coming in here to whine about me, shouldn’t your time be better spent looking at why you haven’t responded to the many threads I’ve proven you wrong with verifiable facts, only for you to mysteriously stop posting in the thread? It would help you stop being repeatedly called out on the same fallacies.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
“No, they aren’t destroyed, but they are put on a lower level and thus treated unequally.”
Comments are people my friend
Re: Re:
Free speech means that you are free to publish your speech at your own expense. For instance you could create your own blog. It does no mean that you can force your way into conversations in forum where you did not buy or otherwise arrange the forum.
What you keep on demanding is that other people listen to you, and that is not a right, but rather the tactic that heckler use to shut down speech that they do not like.
Re: Re:
Aww are you whining that the community keep telling you you’re not welcome here again?
Once again – free speech does not mean you’re free from consequences. If the consequences of that speech is that this community tells you that you’re a dick and they’d rather not be reading your worss, than no right of your has been violated. As you can see from all the responses you constantly get every time you do this, your freedom has not been abridged.
That you’re too stupid to understand this does not change your access to speech.
Re: Re: Re:
“That you’re too stupid to understand this does not change your access to speech.”
You missed the point so bad that you create a caricature out of yourself. There is a difference between “ignoring” people and taking active steps to silence them.
It is sad that you do not realize the psychology behind being able to so easily participate in the silencing of others because it serves your agenda or politics.
The more you and others do it, the more we will create politicians and people willing to make it law. TD has a culture that promotes the silencing of speech while “claiming” to value it. Those that flag comments they don’t like are exactly what promotes the assault on free speech and propels it forward one micron at a time. It creates an atmosphere that says, watch what you say or else… the literal “chilling effects” written about here and on other blogs.
If your desire is to silence rather than use free speech in retort, then you are indeed a part of the problem that this very article talks about. The harder you squeeze, the more that slips through your fingers.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
If you think TD people mark posts as trolling JUST to exclude dissenters, why are we able to read your comments? So far you’ve managed to avoid being flagged in this conversation, despite the criticism of TD and TD forum participants.
Criticism and dissent are a fine and dandy part of debate. It’s lying and trolling and downright insults that get you (and others into trouble).
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
“It’s lying and trolling and downright insults that get you (and others into trouble).”
A lie, a troll, and insults are all open to interpretation. Anyone can claim those about anyone and use it as justification to suppress.
What happens when you create a weapon that can be used against anyone at any time? It gets abused, that is just how humanity works.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
OK, so what’s you’re answer to responding to people who are trolling, lying and abusive toward the community? No, allowing the person to completely disrupt the entire room without consequence is not a valid answer.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
Use them as teachable moments instead. The more you try to marginalize others the more it tends to backfire. It puts people on edge and they like to find avenues of retort.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
It’s not incumbent on TD to teach clowns how to be civil in public. That’s the job that their parents so obviously failed at.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
“Use them as teachable moments instead.”
Most of the regular idiots aren’t in this to be taught anything, and will actively avoid anything that proves them wrong, preferring to repeat the same tired lies in the next thread after being proven wrong.
At some point, it really is better to ignore them. I only insist on replying some times in case a casual reader might take them seriously and I’m stuck at work with literally nothing better to do.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
“There is a difference between “ignoring” people and taking active steps to silence them.”
Yes there is. Nobody’s stopping your embarrassing rants. People are just warning other customers in the restraurant that they might not want to start a conversation with the person trying to argue with the plant pot.
“TD has a culture that promotes the silencing of speech while “claiming” to value it”
Yet, you’re never silenced. Everyone can still read and reply to your bullshit. They just just get a warning of the smell before they approach it.
“If your desire is to silence rather than use free speech in retort, then you are indeed a part of the problem that this very article talks about”
Good news! I am calling you a liar and an idiot to your face. Be happy.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Your argument has a fundamental flaw in its base, free speech does not mean that you can insist that others publish your speech at their expense.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
I am not making that claim at all, that is a straw man argument.
I am advancing the argument that the psychology behind people using tool to suppress others becomes counter productive to the ideals of “freedom of speech”.
I am not saying anyone should be forced to read or publish anything. I am saying that people should not make effort to suppress things.
Imagine if the “flag” button was a test of your true desire to uphold the virtue of freedom of speech, not as a legal idea, but a social one? If you are okay with allowing the social one to rot, often times the legal one will follow it to some degree.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Oh please.
This is, in a word, nonsense.
The ideals of freedom of speech do not in any way, shape or form require people to practice a “psychology” wherein they give their full attention and time to every little piece of speech that floats their way.
In fact, if people believed that “freedom of speech” meant they should under no circumstances curate and moderate their own discussion forums and communities, they would be less likely to support it as a principle.
But it doesn’t mean that.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
If you were at a restaurant and the table comes in next to you, becomes unruly, loud, obnoxious, etc… Would you not spend some effort to ask your server to either be relocated or to relocate the loud table next to you?
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Is the freedom of speech an ideal or a virtue … I’m confused. Please tell me what to think because I am too stupid to figure it out on my own.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Just because people support free speech, and agree that you can publish your speech via forum you own or hire, does not mean that they have to listen to you. Go away, I do not want to listen to you is NOT and infringement of your free speech right, and you insisting that it is is you insisting that people must listen to you.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
The right to speak your mind does not include the right to force others to listen.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Imagine, if your aunt had a dick thean she’d be your uncle. And your bullshit arguement would still be bullshit.
Re: Re: Re:
Excuse me? No one speaks for me. I have no issues with anyone who posts here because I don’t personalize content.
USENET is the only true free-speech platform on the internet, and people didn’t want it. Even this site has an owner and can be moderated. USENET cannot.
Re: Re:
Counterarguement https://xkcd.com/1357/ you’re just an asshole.
Re: Re:
What an absolute pile of shit. You remind me of the terror preaches who claim that not allowing them to organise and plan terror attacks is an attack of their freedom of speech.
In short, get fucked.
Glad to help
Great tech site, glad to be able to help, wish I could have done more.
Kock versus Thiel? I love it!
No, it's administrator action: "It even exists here at TD where the community itself likes to flag comments that it "disapproves" of."
The notion that it’s other users is just another lie. In any case, NO “community” that values “free speech” censors, nor has a right to. It’s ridiculous that a site with such charter even has the censoring, I mean “hiding”.
Besides, as practical fact Techdirt is a PUBLIC SITE, SEE? Here I am using the public comment box it offers, of its own will. That’s a FORMS CONTRACT, which along with other points (that Techdirt implies but won’t state), makes this a PUBLIC SITE.
Besides again, Techdirt fanboys state that once a movie, say, is made public, anyone can take it for free. Then they turn right round and say use of this site is only by permission!
Re: No, it's administrator action: "It even exists here at TD where the community itself likes to flag comments that it "disapproves" of."
“The notion that it’s other users is just another lie.”
I await your evidence for this claim.
“Besides, as practical fact Techdirt is a PUBLIC SITE, SEE?”
…and like any business open to the public it reserves the right to refuse admission or refuse service. But, it’s not even doing that, it’s just saying that the early morning coffee drinkers might not want to hear the vodka-soaked ramblings of the local hobos just because they decided to sit at a nearby table.
It’s amazing – I’ve seen sites that actually block, ban and remove comments by users. This is not one of them, yet I’ve never seen anyone whine so incessantly. Granted that’s a skewed observation since other sites that actually block the whiny shits will also block their whining in response to the block, but still..
“Besides again, Techdirt fanboys state that once a movie, say, is made public, anyone can take it for free”
Citation needed.
Re: No, it's administrator action: "It even exists here at TD where the community itself likes to flag comments that it "disapproves" of."
You sovereign citizen types would be actually funny if you weren’t unhinged lunatics to a man.
Re: Re: Re:
On the other hand, I do enjoy watching SovCits flail around in courts of law.
Re: No, it's administrator action: "It even exists here at TD where the community itself likes to flag comments that it "disapproves" of."
I understand some people have serious learning issues but you must be some special case. It’s been pointed out for years now that posts are not censored but rather hidden because they are devoid of substance which means you can read them. It actually calls attention that a comment has been hidden by displaying a gray text (This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it) with a link to reveal the hidden comment. It’s actually how I get the context when people much wiser than you delivers your ass in a plate back to yourself with excellent replies. Or it’s how I sometimes do the ass handling myself with my own replies. Even when they are hidden. I know you and other morons are going to keep saying it’s censored but I have some news for you: repeating lies won’t make them truths.
As for the rest, I’ll leave to Paul, he did a nice job. I just wanted to emphasize this specific part. Because this lie is already tired.
Re: Re: No, it's administrator action: "It even exists here at TD where Paul is a real estate novelist who never had time for a wife, and he's talking with Davy, who's still in the Navy and probably will be for life."
Case in point: people are still replying to the dingbat, giving him the attention he wants and helping his nonsense to dominate the conversation.
Re: Re: Re: No, it's administrator action: "It even exists here at TD where Paul is a real estate novelist who never had time for a wife, and he's talking with Davy, who's still in the Navy and probably will be for life."
Oh but it’s important to counter his flawed arguments and it serves often as a reminder of what has already been debunked. I’ve seen awesome comments that giver thorough explanation of why they are wrong and that’s why I value those trollish comments. I do try to ignore those that post attacks without any pseudo-truth though (when I’m not replying for pure old swearing and trolling back of course).
Re: Re: Re:2 No, it's administrator action: "It even exists here at TD where Paul is a real estate novelist who never had time for a wife, and he's talking with Davy, who's still in the Navy and probably will be for life."
Maybe the first three times. By the thousandth, it’s a waste of everybody’s time and energy.
Re: No, it's administrator action: "It even exists here at TD where the community itself likes to flag comments that it "disapproves" of."
Blue also thinks his unique definition of "PUBLIC SITE" applies at Walmart too. I think this might be a video of him:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6USNGO4wwoc
Re: Re: No, it's administrator action: "It even exists here at TD where the community itself likes to flag comments that it "disapproves" of."
Remember when out_of_the_blue used to bitch about how pirate sites don’t give out contracts so artists could never, ever benefit from them? Now he’s stuck to seeing contracts that don’t exist on websites or in law. For someone who claims to be dead set against government and corporate culture he’s pretty addicted to regulation.
Re: Re:
Any given community has a right to choose what speech it will or will not associate with. To say otherwise is to illegally force a community to associate with or host speech. I cannot force Stormfront to host interracial marriage announcements any more than you can force Techdirt to host pro-DRM propaganda.
Discretion is when someone says, “I am not going to publish this.” Censorship is when someone says, “You are not going to publish this.” Your comments being hidden or held by the spam filter does not prevent you from publishing those same comments anywhere else.
The comments sections provided on this blog exist as a privilege, not a right. You cannot force Techdirt to host your comments; there is no law, common or otherwise, that says you can.
Technically, yes, a movie can be downloaded for free once it is made public. The technology and knowledge required to do so exists. The question of whether the act of downloading that movie is legal/moral deserves a nuanced and thoughtful discussion, which you can—and often do—find in these comments sections.
Again: The comments sections here are a privilege, not a right—and that privilege can be revoked even if you think it cannot.
It appears that there are simply too many people who do not understand the implications of and the differences between the First and Second Amendment.
On the most simple level the First Amendment is about free speech and the Second Amendment is about guns. That is the simpleton view point.
On a more advanced level the First Amendment is freedom of action and the Second Amendment is about responsablioty.
The founding fathers had a considerable long term debate over this subject climaxing in the Alexander Hamilton / Aron Burr debate.
The quick short version:
Hamilton had a quick sarcastic whit which offended almost everyone at sometime.
Burr was a hothead easily offended.
They settled their differences by Burr planting Hamilton.
This was unacceptable to The President, Thomas Jefferson.
Burr ran off to New Orleans then part of France.
Jefferson sent American law officers into France, New Orleans, where they kidnapped (without French government input so it could not be an arrest until they were back in the U.S.) Burr.
It is rumored that Burr travel from New Orleans to Washington strapped on his stomach on the back of a horse, a most unpleasant way to travel.
It took John Marshall, Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court, to straighten out the matter.
As Burr had committed no crime, dueling was legal at the time, he was released.
Burr’s political career was destroyed and it is rumored he moved to New Orleans.
Hamilton was of course spending his time looking at the bottom end of the daises.
Fabulous read in what the founding fathers thought of freedom and responsibility and the consequences of one’s actions.
Short Wikipedia version:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burr%E2%80%93Hamilton_duel
Re: Re:
Wow, that’s insightful.
Charles Koch Foundation
The Charles Koch Foundation?
*spits out coffee*
Erm, really? Okay…
Re: Charles Koch Foundation
Politics makes strange bedfellows eh? It makes sense though, the Kochs wouldn’t be able to spread the message of https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Birch_Society without a robust first admendment.
Re: Re: Charles Koch Foundation
It is a bit strange. They back climate denial drivel, yet their foundation contributes to Nova, a science program on PBS that has at least one episode on climate change.
Re: Charles Koch Foundation
”Politics makes strange bedfellows”, and that saying is old enough that strange bedfellows still had quite a bit of currency when the saying was coined.
One item that non-Americans (with the possible exception of our northern neighbors) may fail to truly understand is exactly how much ideological indoctrination Americans of a certain generation received and internalized about the ‘shared ties that bind us together as a nation.’
The 20th century was an age of ideological conflict. Not quite like the religious conflict of the 1600s, but nevertheless waged with faith and fervor.
Re: Re: Charles Koch Foundation
Yeah… the conflict continues now, now with reduced brainpower. People just yell talking points at each other as if the repetition can convert the other side. It doesn’t work, I just interpret all shoutiness as noise and ignore it. The arguments that get and hold my attention are logical, factual, and delivered in a sober tone.
Thank you, both ACs and Baron von Robber, for your thoughtful replies.
While I enjoy the site and its articles, I actually stopped reporting many new articles to techdirt regarding free speech lawsuits and copyright lawsuits that techdirt hasn’t reported on for the simple fact that techdirt stopped giving credit to its users for sending in the links to such articles.
I noticed this trend with techdirt writers taking the ideas as their own and not giving its users the proper credit for reporting those articles to techdirt. Techdirt has become the very problem that it reports on, which I found to be ironic.
Re: Re:
You are making the assumption that Techdirt writers don’t have RSS feeds, multiple sites they visit regularly, or make use of search engines to find keywords that lead them to stories they wish to write about. Just because you send them a link does not mean they had not already found that link on their own. It is also possible that many users forwarded the same link or different links referencing the same story. Should they all get recognition?
I have personally forwarded them links, and then the story comes out and their sources are completely different than the ones I found. I did not take it personally when I was not given a ‘hat tip’.
I would have thought the store cheaper
Funny… I would have thought going to the store and buying a “year without TechDirt” would have been cheaper than the lawyer fees.
Or is that no longer a thing? The link to the Insider Shop is rather hard to find…
Also EULA's, Trump's NDA's, Gov. data collection
Speech suppression strategies include-End User Licensing Agreements, which the majority of public libraries and archives currently use without challenge.
This is on top of Libraries’ practice of camouflaging Public Records as privately owned unpublished manuscripts.
Archives are Public Records. Access and use are controlled by Freedom of Information laws.
Libraries treat their archive collections as if they were their very own personal unpublished manuscript collection using copyright laws from pre-1970’s. They demand a photo-copy of your drivers license to view them. They demand an End User Licensing Agreement on how you intend to use the public records, which are Unconstitutional Restrictive Covenants. And they violate state data collection and dissemination laws on the EULA by asking how many copies of your work you intend to publish, or even by retaining your name in their retention records. The Library of Virginia still keeps “permission to publish” forms with social security numbers on them, under their data retention guidelines, for 25 years, as far as I can tell. And these are for public domain documents. The copyright rules for unpublished manuscripts changed on Jan. 1, 2003, and they still haven’t got the memo.
Restrictive covenants include non-disparagement agreements for current and former employees, including on social media. The National Labor Review Board has consistently ruled that these are illegal under certain conditions, and makes employers post violation-specific notices of employee rights at their workplace as part of the remedy for abuses.
Trump required some Volunteers during his campaign to sign life-time non-disparagement agreements, and that seems to have been under-reported with all the other drama over-shadowing it. Yet, under FOI principles, how many NDA’s have been signed within the White House and federal agencies since Jan.? If the answer is none, then former staff and agencies can feel free to talk, I guess.
Restrictive covenants, which violate free speech, etc., can only be used when there is a compelling public interest. What is the compelling public interest in a non-disparagement agreement written into a divorce settlement, tied in with threats of cutting off alimony? What is the public interest in a non-disparagement agreement connected with threats of cutting off periodic payments in an employee severance package?
It seems that what goes around comes around. The Buck Stops Here. Little Brother is Watching You.
Re: Also EULA's, Trump's NDA's, Gov. data collection
The 1st Amendment is a prohibition on the government, not private entities. We may decry speech restrictions made by private or even public entities, but it is only ‘illegal’ when the government does it.
Re: Re: Also EULA's, Trump's NDA's, Gov. data collection
Not when it includes a censorship clause.
Google search results for:
attorney general restrictive covenants censorship clause
https://www.google.com/search?q=attorney+general+restrictive+covenants+censorship+clause&oq=attorney+general+restrictive+covenants+censorship+clause&gs_l=psy-ab.3…38305.38621.0.39321.2.2.0.0.0.0.79.153.2.2.0….0…1.1.64.psy-ab..0.0.0.fsh3yf7crfY
Re: Re: Re: Also EULA's, Trump's NDA's, Gov. data collection
What is illegal there is companies trying to deny individual rights, rights that may not be denied. Yes it should be illegal for companies to tell me what I can and cannot say in a contract, especially one where there is no actual negotiation, like a EULA.
While this concept is associated with 1st Amendment concepts, the fact remains that the Constitution is a document relating to government, and what they may or may not do.
Re: Re: Re:2 Also EULA's, Trump's NDA's, Gov. data collection
Thanks for pointing this out.
I thought that agreements are eligible for enforcement in state courts and that would makes the enforcement of agreements by the courts a “state action.”
See google search results for: kleargear “state action”
https://www.google.com/search?q=kleargear+%22state+action%22+&oq=kleargear+%22state+action%22+&gs_l=psy-ab.3..33i160k1l2.60414.69979.0.70310.25.25.0.0.0.0.171.2176.19j4.23.0….0…1.1.64.psy-ab..2.21.1984…0j0i67k1j0i131k1j0i22i30k1j33i21k1.48b8kruNadw
However, it is more complicated than that.
https://www.paed.uscourts.gov/documents/opinions/12D0543P.pdf
When a court enforces a private agreement through the application of state law, which “creates obligations never explicitly assumed by the parties,” it is state action…
We conclude that the defendants violated the non-disparagement provision in the Second Settlement Agreement. Enjoining them from violating the non-disparagement
provision does not violate the United States or Pennsylvania Constitutions because the parties knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived their rights to free speech through an unambiguous agreement negotiated by the parties. They also agreed that an injunction is an appropriate remedy for violations of the agreement. Therefore, we shall grant USAT’s motion and issue an injunction.
This type of issue is currently in the news as we speak:
Google news search result for:
settlement agreements nursing homes arbitration
https://www.google.com/search?q=settlement+agreements+nursing+homes+arbitration&source=lnms&tbm=nws&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjQnOny4crVAhVKzFQKHRkKDa4Q_AUICigB&biw=1024&bih=594
Re: Re: Re:3 Also EULA's, Trump's NDA's, Gov. data collection
Continued from previous post—
Notice in the KleerGear Lawsuit:
The non-disparagement clause is unenforceable under the First Amendment because the appearance of such a term in a contract of adhesion is not a voluntary, knowing and intelligent waiver of a constitutional right, and any attempt to enforce such a term in court would invoke the power of the state so as to constitute state action.
The court case above going into detail about non-disparagement agreements is:
USA TECHNOLOGIES, INC. v. BRADLEY M. TIRPAK, et al.
Re: Re: Re:4 Also EULA's, Trump's NDA's, Gov. data collection
If copyright is subject to the principles of Preemption, then why isn’t free speech also subject to the principle of preemption?
See:
Federal Copyright Preemption of State Law Claims – Still a Powerful Defense Tool in Commercial Litigation
Copyright Preemption may also require the dismissal of state law claims based on breach of contract. Thus, a breach of contract claim is preempted to the extent that the breach is equivalent to an infringement of rights protected by 17 U.S.C. § 106.
https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=b72737dc-273c-4137-b1cf-db04263156ac
———————
Compare to:
Federal Preemption
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_preemption
Preemption in Bankruptcy Courts
Since state law governs most contracts, and contracts usually form the basis for debt, there is a lot of overlap between state laws and bankruptcy.
This overlap is ripe for preemption wherever state law interferes with either the debtor’s fresh start or a creditor’s right to equal distribution.
I will express my opinion. PaulT will probably hate it, but if he calls me names or insults me about it, I hope the community will flag his abusive posts.
My opinion is this: Mike has figured out that Techdirt has run it’s course, and potentially is doomed the result of a lawsuit that he may win, but will either go broke getting there or will have to settle long before it’s over.
Unless, of course, he can raise enough money from people and other groups by wrapping himself in the free speech flag and trying really hard to be a martyr for the cause.
The I Support Journalism thing is fun. It’s a crowd funding site that doesn’t appear to disclose how much funding it’s getting, doesn’t have a goal, and doesn’t appear to report any of that information. It’s hard to read, but it appears to be more “step2” than “techdirt” in it’s success range.
The other part that makes it interesting is this quote:
“I’m happy to announce today that we’ve further partnered with the Freedom of the Press Foundation”
Yet, one of the four members of the steering committee of the isupportjournalism site “Trevor Timm
Executive Director, Freedom Of The Press Foundation”. Oh, the only article I could find on their site about Techdirt was written by Timm himself. Hmm!
You can draw your own conclusions, but it appears that either a takeover is in the making, a merger, or just an in kind trade of space for Freedom of the Press and others to rant to a much larger audience than they command.
Re: Re:
So what?
Re: Re:
You forgot your tinfoil hat!
Re: Re: Re:
No tin foil required… I am just pointing to more than a few dots that exist, you can draw your own lines between them to see what animal you draw.
As for Mr Stone, “So what?”: Well, let’s see. First and foremost, you have to ask “are we getting the full story?”. For a site that pushes hard on transparency, not revealing how crowdfunding is going, and not mentioning that the key group that they are partnering with also just happens to handle the funds. I don’t imply any improper actions, just a weird lack of transparency up front. Since Mike is usually verbose as can be, the small oversight really stands out.
It’s just one of those things.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Bullshit.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You’d spill macaroni on the floor and ask us to join the dots of the conspiracy of this Mikes attempt to stave you to death.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
“I don’t imply any improper actions, just a weird lack of transparency up front”
Something that has a huge number of explanations, including the ongoing legal action that they are facing which involve some admitted restrictions on what the site can publicly say and do.
But, you’ll just happily assume and imply some wrongdoing, dishonest as ever you are.
Re: Re:
“potentially is doomed the result of a lawsuit that he may win, but will either go broke getting there or will have to settle long before it’s over.”
and you think this is perfectly fine ?
Re: Re: Re:
Check out all the posts on Techdirt under the names MyNameHere, Just Sayin’, horse with no name, and Whatever.
He’s not just fine. He’s brimming with so much girlish glee, you can hear him halfway across the planet.
Re: Re: Re:
Here we see the divide between what MyNameHere claims to value and the bitter loathing expressed by his actions. The fact that news of an abusive SLAPP suit is all it takes to launch him into a session of frenzied public masturbation reveals all you need to know.
Re: Re: Re:
Fine? Nope. I think it’s a massive damning of the US justice system. It’s so complex and has so many avenues for action that you can “win” merely by bankrupting the other side. That is incredibly sad, actually.
My comments are only that Mike and the Floor64 crew appear to be starting to set up the “post lawsuit” future, which may or may not be on this site. It’s actually a pretty realistic thing to do, as no matter the end results, Techdirt is already wounded and may never actually recover to it’s full power.
Re: Re:
unintersting.
Re: Re:
Stangre how you obsessively post on a site that’s so doomed. Wouldn’t you idiocy be more welcome on another site where more than a few people will read it, by your claim?
“You can draw your own conclusions”
I will, that being that you still don’t make anything like the correct argument that you think you are, but you’ll sure as hell whine about the people who demonstrate how wrong you are when you make it!
Whoa, everybody!
Lets all just calm down a little. TD has been doing informative, well researched, comment on many much repressed/ignored areas of tech/rights/law intersection.
I’m all for them taking more focus on the 1st, and in particular partnering with the FotPF.
I’m somewhat concerned about the Koch sponsorship, but I expect that is why there was a footnote (*). Sometimes it takes strange bed fellows to address government encroachments on constitutional liberties.
But, here’s a kicker: what happens if TD is purchased and/or becomes defunct? Is there a public archive of their work? Yes, probably; archive.org. Could that be done better? Probably. Is TD interested in working on protecting the continued availability to the public of its free speech, or just in its (and everyone else’s) right to exorcise that right?
Congrats TD on the continued funding and the free speech focus.
free speech
I’m on Techdirt’s side with respect to this lawsuit. I just wish they could see that the way Google/Facebook/Twitter/Reddit seem determined to outlaw badthink on their platforms is just as bad, if not worse, than these SLAP lawsuits.
Re: free speech
A lawsuit filed by someone who wants to chill a person’s ability to express certain opinions or share certain facts is not even remotely the same type of action as a privately-owned platform’s owners and operators exercising discretion in what speech they will or will not host.
Re: free speech
If you don’t like the way those people moderate their platforms, you are free to choose a different platform. You do not, however, have the right to dictate how they operate.
To get to this point, I had to wade through a ton of comments from people posting about how much they’re being censored. Does that strike anyone else as just a little bit funny?
Re: Re:
Eh, the “funny” part is how those imagining they’re being censored have only proven how much they’re “funny” in the head.
Somehow it was funnier when Monty Python did it:
Oh! Come and see the violence inherent in the system! Help, help, I’m being repressed!
(aside: “Bloody Peasant!”)
Ooh, what a giveaway! Did you hear that? Did you hear that, eh? That’s what I’m on about! Did you see him repressing me? You saw it, didn’t you?
I took a couple of days off just to flag trolls on Techdirt.
Champerty
I read on Techdirt that Shiva won some money in a previous suit, enough to finance the current one with Techdirt. In this article, it looks to me like Masnick has now raised money in the name of “Free Speech” but with the actual motive of financing his suit with Shiva using money from left-wing donors that had no previous interest. Their web sites all talk about the suit and the money for Mike, that’s not a coincidence, right? Isn’t this exactly what everyone here bitches that Thiel did? Wow, the hypocrisy here is just incredible. No jury will buy it.
Re: Champerty
How’s that John Steele appeal working out for you bro?
Techdirt: Now with more Free Speech (suppression)
Just count the hidden comments. Your double standards are ridiculous. Techdirt has nothing to do with Free Speech, it has to do with promoting a left-wing agenda,which it has now confirmed by naming the economic and political sponsors of this toilet. Free Speech on Techdirt, that’s amusing. There are tremendous benefits to Free Speech, you should try practicing it. Instead, you justify your suppression of Free Speech because you are too dishonest and pathetic to respond meaningfully to public criticism. Shameful and disgusting.
Re: 'You can say what you want' does not equal 'Everyone has to listen when you say it'
Just in case you missed it.
Re: Re: 'You can say what you want' does not equal 'Everyone has to listen when you say it'
Free speech does mean that others should not be allowed to decide if my speech is more or less prominent then theirs.
When you click flag (and you know you do), you are saying “my opinion is more valid than this”, which is the first step towards tamping down and making less available opinions you don’t agree with.
Flagging should be reserved for spam and name calling. That way, we might never see another comment from PaulT again! 🙂
Re: Re: Re: 'You can say what you want' does not equal 'Everyone has to listen when you say it'
Because you’re somehow above spam and name calling. Oh, wait, no you’re not. Your post history has confirmed signs of name calling which you consider insightful. Trawling through the history of comments posted to the site under different pseudonyms only further cements this.
Being contrarian does not suddenly and automatically mean your position is worth the intelligence you think it deserves. Especially one who goes out of his way to be as abrasive and self-aggrandizing as you do.
It also amuses what you think Techdirt’s “full power” is. The consistent position that Techdirt’s critics have taken is that Masnick is a nobody and the website has no influential power, and yet the group of you are cheering one man’s effort to tear down a block of flats just to get rid of one mosquito.
Re: Re: Re: 'You can say what you want' does not equal 'Everyone has to listen when you say it'
Fighting speech with speech is generally considered fair and holds tight to traditional American values. Ignoring speech is also a potent tool, freely available to everyone, and often effective. Suppressing speech is the act of a coward with nothing to say, and should always be met with disdain.
Re: Re: Re: Actions have consequences
Free speech does mean that others should not be allowed to decide if my speech is more or less prominent then theirs.
If someone decides to go on a rambling rant(potentially involving multiple self-replies), tosses insults out like party favors, throws out the same strawmen that people have seen and responded to to no avail dozens of times, makes baseless accusations or assigns motives to others as though the one making the comment is a mind-reader, they don’t get to act surprised if people flag their comment as ‘abusive/trolling/spam’.
If people are trying to have a productive conversation and someone comes up and starts doing one or more of the above then they are perfectly justified in asking the other person to leave(were this to take place offline), or flagging them as a pest that’s being disruptive, wasting everyone’s time or just flat out obnoxious in the case of an online forum.
When you click flag (and you know you do), you are saying "my opinion is more valid than this", which is the first step towards tamping down and making less available opinions you don’t agree with.
No, if anything I’m saying "If you act like a child you get treated like one, have a ‘go to time-out’ vote". I see nothing wrong in treating someone differently based upon their actions, and if someone is acting childish then they get treated like a child. If they don’t like it then they can act in a more mature fashion the next time.
Flagging should be reserved for spam and name calling. That way, we might never see another comment from PaulT again! 🙂
So out of curiosity, and to check the consistency of your position, would/have you flagged the post I replied to? If not why not, and if so why?
Re: Re: Re: 'You can say what you want' does not equal 'Everyone has to listen when you say it'
“Free speech does mean that others should not be allowed to decide if my speech is more or less prominent then theirs.”
No, it means that the government cannot restrict your speech, and it means that the community around you have the right to also exercise their speech. That speech includes telling others around them that your drivel isn’t worth listening to.
“When you click flag (and you know you do), you are saying “my opinion is more valid than this”
No, they’re saying “what an asshole”, or “please stop trolling” or “I hope nobody else has to waste time on this like I just did”.
Clicking on your hidden idiocy, however, is usually “what has this moron been drooling about this time?”
“That way, we might never see another comment from PaulT again! :)”
Scripts are available to hide my comments if you’re afraid of the unvarnished truth. No need to try and imply that the community should side against me just because your delicate ass is offended by reality.
Re: Re: Re:2 'You can say what you want' does not equal 'Everyone has to listen when you say it'
Straight up. My script can be trivially modified to block any poster’s name, yours and mine included. That’s not a bug, it’s a feature; if people don’t want to read what I have to say, they have a right to hide it, and I’ve even made it convenient for them to do so.
I’m not aware of anybody using my script to block me, but then, I’m not aware of anybody but me using it at all. That’s the thing about freedom (and, in this case, the public domain): people are free to use, or not use, a program as they see fit.
I can’t force anons to read my posts, and they can’t force me to read theirs.
Re: Techdirt: Now with more Free Speech (suppression)
” Techdirt has nothing to do with Free Speech, it has to do with promoting a left-wing agenda,which it has now confirmed by naming the economic and political sponsors of this toilet.”
Are you calling the Charles Koch Foundation left wing? Really?
Re: Techdirt: Now with more Free Speech (suppression)
“promoting a left-wing agenda”
Ooogha booga liberals!
You guys really are pathetic.
“Who are the giants behind the thumbs that are squeezing this pimple (Techdirt)?”
Now we have an answer to that question. Now everything makes a lot more sense. Mike was completely out-matched with Shiva and Harder, that was always obvious. But now we can see who the battle is really between. The “real parties of interest”, the ones who are actually putting up the money. A quarter million dollars, that’s real interest.
Re: Re:
As this whole drama about the lawsuit continues to unfold, and the various players with an interest get publicly identified, I can’t help but admire Mike a little for his hutzba. These are big players on each side of his case with serious (maybe even religious) agendas and a lot of power. A lot. But the only one that is really at risk is Mike (and maybe his wife). Everyone else gets to whip our their clever arguments and see what happens, but only MIke is actually on the hook to “pay the price”. Gutsy, no doubt.
Another really great outcome of Mike getting this money is that I believe they forced him to employ a “resurector of buried comments”. Thrice I have witnessed buried comments coming back to life. It’s either a miracle, or there are some smarter people now behind the scenes at Techdirt. Who are you, oh great resurector of comments? Welcome. May you resurrect them all.
Re: Re:
As much as it makes no sense to have a “resurrector of buried comments”, this would be something I’d be behind. This way you get to see the sort of genius that drives the commentary written in support of Shiva Ayyadurai, and let the jury decide if love letters and fanfiction portray a personality as technological savant or obsessed lunatic.
Re: Re: Re:
Think of me as a literary Reece’s peanut butter cup. A chocolate savant combined with a peanutty lunatic. Really tasty under the right circumstances. Shiva’s different, he’s the real Indian (sorry Tonto).
Re: Re: Re: Re:
That’s not chocolate…
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
So what is it, PaulT? Go ahead and expose what is going on between your pointy little ears. No doubt you have some witticism just waiting to follow up your empty comment.
How about coming back to the point – I see comments that were previously buried back up and fresh like new. Who’s doing it, how is that possible? Do you guys just hide/unhide whatever you like whenever you feel like it? That’s how it appears. Do you sell that as a service? Can I buy something to hide your comments?
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
“How about coming back to the point”
I was responding to your blather about your fetish god Shiva, chocolate and peanut butter. If you wish to make a point about anything else in the article, you are as free to do that as you are to indulge in your sexual fantasies – in fact, I think most others here would prefer it if you did.
“Do you guys just hide/unhide whatever you like whenever you feel like it?”
I unhide whatever I wish to read, whether or not a comment is hidden in the first place is based on the number of report votes it has received. It is possible for a person to remove the report vote if they wish, and that may have the effect of pushing the votes back below the threshold required to hide the comment.
Do you really need the simple operation of this site explained to you, or do you need your conspiracy fantasies to keep you warm whenever you realise you’ve soaked another Shiva photo beyond legibility?
“Can I buy something to hide your comments?”
That service is free if you get enough other people to agree with you, but if you wish to send me money as well, I won’t argue.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
Well, you did expose what is going on between your pointy little ears, thank you for that, I guess.
As for the rest, I guess the “community” speaks for itself regarding what it likes to read and what it does not like to read. What it finds strange and disgusting and what it finds normal and reasonable. I’ve never, ever seen the “community” hide one of your posts, no matter how disgusting. So you win, buddy (or lady, or other, or whoever you might be). You win. I have no more useful comments regarding your view.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
“Well, you did expose what is going on between your pointy little ears, thank you for that, I guess.”
Yeah, facts and responding to the words you have typed. Shocking, I guess.
“As for the rest, I guess the “community” speaks for itself regarding what it likes to read and what it does not like to read.”
Yes, it does, and it does so in possibly the best way I’ve seen across many sites (anonymous comments allowed, no comments deleted, updates to articles clearly labelled and so on).
“I’ve never, ever seen the “community” hide one of your posts, no matter how disgusting”
Weird, I can link you to a few other sites where downvoted comments are hidden, many of them rather famous places on the internet (Slashdot, as a quick example). Are you new to this online thingy?
I can also link you to a number of sites that will simply delete your comment and any responding to it rather than just hiding it. I can also refer you to some that have simply removed the ability to comment at all when moderation proved too tricky. Perhaps you’d be more at home on one of those if you find hiding posts objectionable?
“You win. I have no more useful comments regarding your view.”
I’m glad you admit that truth and reality win out in the end. May you prosper with your new found wisdom.
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
So, Paul, do you really have pointy ears as Shiva’s cockpuppet claims? From my background, “pointy ears” means “Vulcan” a near-epitome of logical and rational thought, the polar opposite of that troll. I’d take those remarks as a compliment.
Re: Re: Re:7 Re:
Sockpuppet*
stupid tiny virtual phone keyboard.
Re: Re: Re:8 Re:
Actually no, cockpuppet sounds about right.
Re: Re: Re:8 Re:
Nah, you were right the first time.
Re: Re: Re:7 Re:
No, but then pointy ears could mean a number of less flattering things so I’ll happily admit to having standard rounded lugs 😉
And thank you
And thank you, oh great resurrector of comments, whomever you are and wherever you may reside. You are a welcome addition to this motley crew, as we all witness the sinking of this Techdirt Pirate Ship.
Re: And thank you
Still unable to grasp reality or the way things actually work, huh?
Yes, but...
I often disagree with the points Techdirt raises, especially when Mike claims that Techdirt doesn’t lean one way or the other on the ideological spectrum (it leans left). I realized a long time ago that I’ll probably not change anyone’s mind with my posts. Some of y’all drank the kool aid a long time ago. And I get my share of flames for speaking out for what I think is right. But, to my knowledge, none of my comments have been suppressed. I’ve even flagged a few comments myself (those calling for violence) – those comments never got hidden either.
But the articles do make me think about what’s going on in our society and that’s a good thing. I appreciate the fact that sometimes when I post I get a reasoned response from folks that I could probably agree to disagree with. Our socioeconomic positions may be so far apart that we can’t see the world the same way – but I’m still interested in what you have to say.
All that being said – I donated to Techdirt’s legal defense fund. Did you?
Re: Yes, but...
Teamchaos, first of all, thank you for donating to my favourite tech blog.
Secondly, the blog doesn’t lean, the writers do. Some are progressive, others are libertarian.
That said, the rightward drift of political discourse does indeed make people like me appear to be left wing and all I did was stand still for thirty years! I’m very glad you’re open to at least considering other points of view. I’ve been won over by the thoughtful arguments of some of the commenters here. Basically, when they appeal to my desire to be reasonable or to achieve a public good, that’s when I come aboard.
While I often disagree with you I’m glad you post here.
Re: Re: Yes, but...
What was it exactly that won you over, Wendy? Maybe this sentence “Do you really need the simple operation of this site explained to you, or do you need your conspiracy fantasies to keep you warm whenever you realise you’ve soaked another Shiva photo beyond legibility?” Is that the “thoughtful argument” you were referring to?
I heard a rumor, Wendy, that actually, you pose as PaulT. Is that true? (Just a question, don’t get upset)
Re: Re: Re: Yes, but...
The voices in your head aren’t “rumors”
Re: Re: Re: Yes, but...
“I heard a rumor, Wendy, that actually, you pose as PaulT. Is that true? (Just a question, don’t get upset)”
That’s not a rumour, that’s a hallucination that exactly one person in the world believes to be true. If you hear anyone else saying that, it’s a sign that you forgot to take your medication again and you should take a pill to stop the voices.
Re: Re: Re:2 Yes, but...
"I never said he was. I said there was a rumor in Milwaukee that he was. Which was true. And I started the rumor in Milwaukee." – Hunter S Thompson
Re: Re: Yes, but...
On the whole, I’d say the blog is center-left with a Libertarian bent (using common American definitions for those terms). There are a number of issues where I’m well to the left of Masnick et al — Citizens United and Uber, off the top of my head.
Charles Koch Foundation
Heh, welcome to the dark side, young Mr. Masnick.
I’ve been in meetings in DC with people from Koch and Soros’ OTI agreeing on issues like this one. The average tech nerd has no idea.
Good luck with your lawsuit. You deserve a lot of abuse, but not over this issue.
I am glad that Techdirt has been offered funding. I hope they get more funding. I would like to see this lawsuit actually go to trial and not prematurely settle.
I think Techdirt will lose, as it deserves to. Having enough funding means Techdirt won’t be able to give in prematurely and then piously claim that it had to because it had insufficient funds.
I don’t think you can first make repeated allegations of fraud written as if they are factual, and then survive a libel lawsuit by claiming it was just hyperbole.