Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt

Techdirt

from the discourse-shmiscourse dept

This week, our first place winner on the insightful side is Thad with some thoughts on Ajit Pai and Section 230:

I’m not sure how much Pai actually buys into this whole “FCC should regulate websites under section 230” business. He hasn’t actually come out in support of it; he’s just said he’d study the issue. My read is that he knows as well as O’Rielly did that this mumbo-jumbo isn’t going to fly, but he’s not going to come out and say so in public because he doesn’t want to end up like O’Rielly.

Even if Trump gets a second term, I wouldn’t be surprised if Pai hemmed and hawed and stalled as long as he could before trying to actually take a side. And what side he came down on would probably have a lot to do with whether he still wanted another term or figured he’d done enough and was ready to go back to Verizon.

None of this should be interpreted as praise or defense of Pai; at best, he’s a coward who’s just going along with this to appease Trump.

In second place, it’s Bloof with a response to a tiresome rant:

Is there a quicker way to stop people taking you seriously than using the term ‘SJW’ to describe people you disagree with? It’s certainly up there with ‘As a libertarian, I think…’, ‘The free market will…’ and ‘the marketplace of ideas’.

For editor’s choice on the insightful side, we start out with That One Guy responding to some pushback on the idea that the TikTok debacle gives China an excuse to mess with American companies, on the basis that China already does so:

There’s a world of difference between messing with a company but having to keep at least some plausible deniability during the process should you get caught, and therefore being limited in what you can do, versus being given free reign to screw with companies because if someone tries to call you on it you can just point to what they did and demand that they explain why it’s okay for them to do something but not you.

Next, we’ve got xyzzy responding to the opposite argument about China — the idea that because it bans stuff, the US should too:

Ah, the old, because “China has an authoritarian regime, that bans a whole bunch of stuff, so the USA should become an authoritarian regime…” argument?

How about, “the USA is a bastion of free speech that the rest of the world looks up to, which makes China look bad in comparison” approach? Oh, I forgot, Trump burnt that boat a while back.

Over on the funny side, our first place winner is an anonymous commenter who found himself caught in the web of Evil Big Tech:

Google made me write this, I have no control over my own actions… … hold on, they’re telling me that I am just supposed to say that ‘big tech good’ and leave out that they’re making me do it. Just ignore the part about me being controlled… they’re telling me that I did this of my own free will and to let you all know that.

In second place, it’s a response to the comment from Bloof that won second place for insightful, with That One Guy answering his question about red-flag terminology:

‘Sheeple’ might get that result quicker, but only just.

For editor’s choice on the funny side, we start out with an anonymous comment about the trademark dispute between Ubisoft and Monster Energy:

To one degree or another I associate both Monster Energy and Ubisoft with upset stomach, so there’s some legitimate chance of confusion.

Finally, we’ve got kallethen with a response to the Walmart press release about TikTok which was so rushed it quoted the company as saying… “Ekejechb ecehggedkrrnikldebgtkjkddhfdenbhbkuk”:

I have to admit, the person writing Walmart’s press release sure did sum up my thoughts on this whole debacle.

That’s all for this week, folks!