Failing that, crapflooding the page with nonsense also seems to be a win for them - if the "argument" happens at the top of the thread, all the reasoned debate gets knocked out of view, minimising the number of people who will see it and maximising the number who see only semi-literate idiocy.
That you think that the average reader is unable to parse a conversation and determine what is noise and what is signal is semi-insulting.
...it's quite likely that some, most or even all of these replies are themselves by paid shills...
LOL. I wish someone paid me to comment here.
They don't need lecturing, they need to be banned forever.
So your solution to speech you disagree with or that annoys you is to ban that speech?
Now don't get me wrong here, I agree that the shills and morons like Blue are most definitely annoying and distracting to the conversation here, but I will fight to the death for their right to express themselves as much as I would for my own rights to express myself.
The proper response to incorrect or disagreeable speech is to counter it with more speech.
Re: Masnick against "innovative services on condition that they do not harm the open Internet access"!
Take away that presumption and it's just ranting.
You can call whatever you wish, but the bottom line still remains the same: Thousands of people come back here every day to hear what Mike has to say and very few (if any, based on how fast your comments are hidden) are here for what you have to say.
Re: "You want Shenmue 3? You'll get it. If you pay for it." -- Direct quote from:
WHAT'S NEW ABOUT CONNECTING "PAY" TO "GET"? That's all any creator has ever asked, you pirates!
Personally, I find it very interesting to watch such things as Kickstarter progressing and gaining popularity. To me, it represents a fundamental shift away from our current copyright system back to the way is was before copyright existed. It's basically a patronage system on steroids where many patrons can contribute smaller amounts.
You undermined your argument all by yourself there. Perhaps your vehement dislike of alcohol has colored your thinking a bit here. (not that I disagree all that much about the evils of alcohol abuse, being sober for over ten years myself now).
Your argument boils down to this:
In order to safeguard your rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness we have to dictate how you live your life, remove your liberty to consume what you wish and only allow you to pursue happiness that we approve of.
Re: Re: Among usual boilerplate, Masnick's only real worry is "undermine intermediary liability".
Mike isn't censoring you. The rest of us are.
Blue also cannot seem to understand that no one is clicking report in his comments because they wish to "censor" him or because they want to "bury the message" or whatever other tinfoil-hat conspiracy he believes is happening.
People click report on his comments because they are "trollish" and that is one of the explicit, stated purposes of the report button. (you can hoover over the button for a description)
You appear to be under the impression that in this day and age, journalism and exposure can do a thing to dissuade these companies.
I believe they can, to some degree. Public opinion does hold weight with stockholders who don't wish their investments to be devalued by a public trashing of the company.
As a counterargument, I offer... oh, I dunno... maybe every single thing that we found out the oil industry has done since the invention of the Internet?
I don't see the invention of the Internet as the turning point here. It's since everyone started carrying a remote TV news crew in their pocket that's the turning point. With smartphones and all the associated social media apps anyone can be a reporter these days. We don't have to wait for mainstream media to get around to doing an in-depth exposé to get people up in arms about an issue.
Standards are: If you allow oil industry to pollute limitless they will, since it is in their best interest.
This argument may have held true in the past when such things could be done pretty easily without public knowledge. I'm not so sure that in this day and age of social journalism that oil companies could get away doing things like that, even without the standards we currently have in place.
Re: Re: Re: Re: How EXACTLY does the comment by " JustShutUpAndObey" get the "First Word" linkage above when that person has no visible profile?
Techdirt Insiders get First/Last Word credits with purchases. Some packages include monthly replenishes of credits. They can be used on any comment from anybody, including non-registered AC's and even their own comments if they wish. It's all laid out here in plain English for anyone to read: