They'd probably want to deport him when discovering him in any other way, too.
Nope. It appears he was singled out for his reporting, which should concern even
So basically the question is whether this is sufficiently "fruit of the forbidden tree" to give him a free pass once. Problem with that is that they can hardly pretent not having gotten notice of him now, so that would be a short relief.
That's not what fruit of the forbidden tree means, but glad you've picked up some terminology you don't understand.
I'll readily admit that this looks shitty but it does not sound like he has bothered giving the U.S. authorities a chance to actually consider the death threats he got for deciding about whether to admit him as a refugee.
I don't find anything above at all persuasive as to why a mugshot should automatically be a publicly-available "public record."
"Should" has nothing to do with it. They ARE public records under existing law. Therefore, this is about public records. That you think they should not be public records is a different issue entirely.
Given that they are currently public records, the arrest here is worrisome in the extreme.
I love the fact that Richard clearly didn't even read the article and his hilariously weak attempt at mocking it is undermined by what was said in the article itself.
Classic Richard Bennett. Totally full of himself... and totally full of shit.
Re: Highlights from Reddit (don't get excited, not much):
Masnick (paraphrased): It's a really great question. I've thought about that and I never have ethical problems when I get money.
If that's how you paraphrased what I said, you need to work on your paraphrasing skills, man. For the record, you can read what I actually said at the following link:
Not this again. No offense, but every time you go off on one of these rants where you claim that everyone who is explaining stuff to you is simply too stupid to understand your galaxy brain, the dumber and more clueless you look. You are (and have for however long you've been here) coming off like a high school student who read a first year text and thinks you understand things, insulting people who actually understand the shit that you have no clue about.
Those are you "claims" yet you still support the NN rules, which clearly dictate that the FCC can pick and choose winners and losers based on how those rules get enforced.
Same with antitrust, which you've stated multiple times you support. And, honestly, NN is even better situated than anti-trust, because unlike antitrust, NN sets out the basic parameters of how to stay in compliance with providing an open internet.
NN needs to die so the cities and states will take action to fight incumbent ISP's the way some are doing now. If NN comes back the fight against the monopolies will be lulled into a false peace. Toss NN, lets go for the throats of the ISP's, you just want to bite their toes and ankles like a little yapping dog!
We need to destroy the system to save the system! That shit is like, high school high on drugs philosophy. It doesn't work. It tends to just fuck stuff up. Having 50 different states come up with different rules for an open internet is no solution. You'd know that if you knew how this stuff works, but you don't, so you just spout nonsense.
I fully admit that you guys have your "hearts are in the right place" but your brains are clearly out to lunch.
Yeah, those of us who actually have spent years on this topic are out to lunch, whereas you, the high school student, you've got this shit down. Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.
We cannot "regulate" ourselves out of this... it is just not possible. We might be able to regulate ourselves into a better position and yes the current NN rules might do that, but I just am saying that is not even close to enough. It still allows the ISP's to have their monopolies and fiefdoms, the ISP's till get to keep all the money they yoinked out of everyone's hands and they are still going to have the blessings of all those regulations that keep a very high barrier of entry to the market to prevent competition just like it did Google's gigabit fiber.
And your answer is to keep the regulatory regime in place, but with fewer rules, less competition and more ability for monopolies to form. That's deep, man.
Yikes Mike, you are being clearly dishonest or misleading. The lie constantly perpetrated on me is the lie that I am for "100% total deregulation" by being anti-regulatory where corporations totally control and own everything.
You have said multiple times that you are against ANY gov't regulation. And then, when called on it, you admit that you're okay with antitrust. Which means you were not being accurate, and when people call out your bullshit you get weaselly. Which is why everyone thinks you're an idiot.
Yes, I don't have a problem with you believing that the NN rules are complimentary to Free-Market, but as much as you can believe that, you are just wrong.
Convincing.
Look, a PRINCIPLED, intellectually honest response would be about WHY NN is antithetical to a free market. You didn't do that. You just claim I'm wrong. I wrote a long detailed post why NN and free market can co-exist. If you want to tell me I'm wrong, the onus is on you to give AN ACTUAL FUCKING ARGUMENT, not just "you are just wrong."
Government control must be removed from the equation entirely.
Wait. Just 10 seconds ago you said it was a lie that people were claiming that you said government control must be removed entirely. Do you even know what you believe?
And if you believe that, then how do you square that with your support for antitrust?
The ONLY part government should have is punishment.
Oh, I see. Hey, guess what Sparky: the only part the FCC has with NN is punishment. So... now do you support the rules?
Either way -- and this is the important part -- you TOTALLY FAILED to address the key point I made. Which is that you flat out lie when you claim that Techdirt's default position is "more government." I explained to you in detail that we generally distrust government, but we're not so cultish and religious to believe that government never has a role. So in this ONE case we believe that government has an appropriate and very limited role.
And yet rather than admit that YOU FUCKING LIED (because you did), you just attack our position on net neutrality (without any reason, just telling us we're wrong).
So let's split the discussion into two things:
STOP FUCKING LYING and claiming that our default position on everything is "more government."
Explain why in THIS INSTANCE you think NN regs are bad and why we're wrong to say that given this particular set of circumstances they are a better result.
Can you do that? Can you making a coherent argument?
As long as the government get to "regulate" them as "natural monopolies" then we will never have free-market relief.*
WHAT?!? Do you know the first thing about what a natural monopoly is, because it certainly looks like you do not.
And this does not even get into the arbitrary enforcement of regulations that government already has a problem with.
Yet you support antitrust enforcement. You're a bundle of nonsense.
Says a website dedicated to advancing the notion of government controlled economy and regulatory agency.
Every single freaking time you post this, I explain to you that this is wrong. And yet you post it again.
So, let's do this AGAIN: we are not advocating for "government controlled economy" in any way at all. In fact, in nearly all cases, we advocate for less regulation and less government interference. In ONE SPECIFIC AREA, we advocate for LIMITED rules by the FCC to protect competition and an open internet. And we've explained why this is IN LINE with our general belief of keeping government out of the regulatory game:
You, yourself, has admitted that you TOO are fine with government regulation in some narrow cases, involving antitrust. Yet, no one then turns around and blatantly lies, accusing you of supporting "government control" in all cases.
Ha, ha, ha!... Mike Masnick is "concerned" about the EU Commission's hidden agenda to instigate censorship of the Net, while he openly allows clique Techdirters to "red flag" the comments of others!... whereby, the "dissented comments" of the flagged can be removed from clique Techdirters' site view!
What is the hypocrisy here? Can you explain it, because I don't see any. My concern is over governments telling platforms that they MUST filter sites in the way in which the government insists they must or face legal consequences.
That's entirely different than platforms choosing to filter content the way they feel is proper for their community.
You’ve said you do not subscribe to Netflix or HBO, so which ones do you pay for?
Correct. Not because I don't want to give them money (as you implied), but because I just don't have enough time to watch the stuff that's on there. I did pay for Amazon Prime and Hulu in the past, but stopped both when I realized I don't use them enough. I figure someday, when I have more time, I'll probably end up subscribing to Netflix. I just don't have the time to watch Netflix content regularly.
Currently I pay for Spotify (and have since the day it launched in the US) and then regularly pay for non-subscription streaming services, including Redbox and Vudu (to rent movies). I also pay regularly for streaming educational videos. I also pay for MLB's streaming service (and have since it launched).
So, yeah. The idea that I refuse to pay for streaming services is simply made up in your head. You took the fact that I once noted I don't subscribe to two particular streaming services and falsely assumed that I refuse to subscribe to any and therefore I must pirate.
Let's see if you'll admit that you jumped to conclusions and was wrong. I doubt it.
He’s said numerous times that he refuses to pay money for any of the streaming/cable services.
Can you point to where I said that, because it's not even remotely true. I have paid for streaming and cable and satellite services. I do currently pay for some streaming services and have for years. I also pay for individual piece of content at times. What I do NOT do is pirate content.
The fact that I advocate against copyright overreach and in favor of rethinking copyright does not mean that I must automatically refuse to live under the existing laws. Indeed, I take pride in doing everything possible to live by the existing laws to better understand just how silly many of them are.
Again, you have a strawman built up in your head about me, and it's kind of hilarious how wrong it is.
Mike Masnick- you pirate the HBO shows that you watch; should you really be criticizing here?
Huh? This is not even remotely true. I'm amused that you think so. Why would you say such a thing?
I find it hilarious that everyone insists I must pirate content. I don't. What I find most amazing is that I even had an industry exec admit to me that HE pirates stuff, and when I explained that I don't, he seemed shocked, saying that everyone does it. Sometimes I wonder if the reason the industry is so anti-piracy is because they're the biggest pirates.
TD should be lobbying its Silicon Valley friends and patrons to lead the way in pivoting from a data theft business model to something more sustainable. Because it's going to happen anyway. Google could come out of it a hero if it plays it properly.
Did you see what I wrote in the post exactly one before this one about what Facebook should be doing?
Re: Do you EVER, for even ten seconds, worry about GOOGLE?
Astute enough to spot which GIANT "platform" is left out? As always here.]
Er, YouTube is Google. The reason I included YouTube rather than Google in general is that YouTube is Google's primary user generated content platform, and thus the main platform that people are demanding have their content moderated on...
TD is firmly a proponent of regulations that prevent that competitive element. I would be happy to be proven wrong, but I don't think I will.
We have responded to you on this claim multiple times, explained in great detail why you're wrong and why we support competition and less regulation in nearly all circumstances.
Your response is... to ignore that and pretend that your made up "what TD wants" is reality.
Re: Re: No, "worst kinds of copyright problems" are to prevent piracy.
Uh, I've never heard of that "pirates-forum" site before. It looks like someone is copying over some of our posts (which they're perfectly allowed to do). But that's not me on that site.
Anonymous Coward, 25 Apr 2018 @ 10:19pm
This game will be available for free right? I don’t feel like paying for the Kickstarter but I want the game, so you’re going to let me have it, right?
The FOIA files are free for everyone. Have at it. Isn't the public domain wonderful?
On the post: ICE Trying To Deport Journalist For Reporting On Abusive ICE Behavior
Re: Sounds a bit different to me.
They'd probably want to deport him when discovering him in any other way, too.
Nope. It appears he was singled out for his reporting, which should concern even
So basically the question is whether this is sufficiently "fruit of the forbidden tree" to give him a free pass once. Problem with that is that they can hardly pretent not having gotten notice of him now, so that would be a short relief.
That's not what fruit of the forbidden tree means, but glad you've picked up some terminology you don't understand.
I'll readily admit that this looks shitty but it does not sound like he has bothered giving the U.S. authorities a chance to actually consider the death threats he got for deciding about whether to admit him as a refugee.
How do you know that?
On the post: Mugshots.com Operators Arrested For Letting Money Influence Editorial Decisions
Re: Re: Re: Re: Them today, you tomorrow
I don't find anything above at all persuasive as to why a mugshot should automatically be a publicly-available "public record."
"Should" has nothing to do with it. They ARE public records under existing law. Therefore, this is about public records. That you think they should not be public records is a different issue entirely.
Given that they are currently public records, the arrest here is worrisome in the extreme.
On the post: Senate Approves First Step In Uphill Effort To Restore Net Neutrality
Re: Senate saves the Internet!
Classic Richard Bennett. Totally full of himself... and totally full of shit.
On the post: Less Than One Week To Back Our Kickstarter For The CIA's Card Game; Also Reddit AMA Today
Re: Highlights from Reddit (don't get excited, not much):
Masnick (paraphrased): It's a really great question. I've thought about that and I never have ethical problems when I get money.
If that's how you paraphrased what I said, you need to work on your paraphrasing skills, man. For the record, you can read what I actually said at the following link:
https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/8jwdjy/im_mike_masnick_from_techdirt_with_randy_lubin/d z35wh8
On the post: UK Cops Threaten Facebook Users With Arrest After They Mock Department's Tiny Drug Bust
Re: Re: Re:
Not this again. No offense, but every time you go off on one of these rants where you claim that everyone who is explaining stuff to you is simply too stupid to understand your galaxy brain, the dumber and more clueless you look. You are (and have for however long you've been here) coming off like a high school student who read a first year text and thinks you understand things, insulting people who actually understand the shit that you have no clue about.
Those are you "claims" yet you still support the NN rules, which clearly dictate that the FCC can pick and choose winners and losers based on how those rules get enforced.
Same with antitrust, which you've stated multiple times you support. And, honestly, NN is even better situated than anti-trust, because unlike antitrust, NN sets out the basic parameters of how to stay in compliance with providing an open internet.
NN needs to die so the cities and states will take action to fight incumbent ISP's the way some are doing now. If NN comes back the fight against the monopolies will be lulled into a false peace. Toss NN, lets go for the throats of the ISP's, you just want to bite their toes and ankles like a little yapping dog!
We need to destroy the system to save the system! That shit is like, high school high on drugs philosophy. It doesn't work. It tends to just fuck stuff up. Having 50 different states come up with different rules for an open internet is no solution. You'd know that if you knew how this stuff works, but you don't, so you just spout nonsense.
I fully admit that you guys have your "hearts are in the right place" but your brains are clearly out to lunch.
Yeah, those of us who actually have spent years on this topic are out to lunch, whereas you, the high school student, you've got this shit down. Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.
We cannot "regulate" ourselves out of this... it is just not possible. We might be able to regulate ourselves into a better position and yes the current NN rules might do that, but I just am saying that is not even close to enough. It still allows the ISP's to have their monopolies and fiefdoms, the ISP's till get to keep all the money they yoinked out of everyone's hands and they are still going to have the blessings of all those regulations that keep a very high barrier of entry to the market to prevent competition just like it did Google's gigabit fiber.
And your answer is to keep the regulatory regime in place, but with fewer rules, less competition and more ability for monopolies to form. That's deep, man.
Yikes Mike, you are being clearly dishonest or misleading. The lie constantly perpetrated on me is the lie that I am for "100% total deregulation" by being anti-regulatory where corporations totally control and own everything.
You have said multiple times that you are against ANY gov't regulation. And then, when called on it, you admit that you're okay with antitrust. Which means you were not being accurate, and when people call out your bullshit you get weaselly. Which is why everyone thinks you're an idiot.
Yes, I don't have a problem with you believing that the NN rules are complimentary to Free-Market, but as much as you can believe that, you are just wrong.
Convincing.
Look, a PRINCIPLED, intellectually honest response would be about WHY NN is antithetical to a free market. You didn't do that. You just claim I'm wrong. I wrote a long detailed post why NN and free market can co-exist. If you want to tell me I'm wrong, the onus is on you to give AN ACTUAL FUCKING ARGUMENT, not just "you are just wrong."
Government control must be removed from the equation entirely.
Wait. Just 10 seconds ago you said it was a lie that people were claiming that you said government control must be removed entirely. Do you even know what you believe?
And if you believe that, then how do you square that with your support for antitrust?
The ONLY part government should have is punishment.
Oh, I see. Hey, guess what Sparky: the only part the FCC has with NN is punishment. So... now do you support the rules?
Either way -- and this is the important part -- you TOTALLY FAILED to address the key point I made. Which is that you flat out lie when you claim that Techdirt's default position is "more government." I explained to you in detail that we generally distrust government, but we're not so cultish and religious to believe that government never has a role. So in this ONE case we believe that government has an appropriate and very limited role.
And yet rather than admit that YOU FUCKING LIED (because you did), you just attack our position on net neutrality (without any reason, just telling us we're wrong).
So let's split the discussion into two things:
STOP FUCKING LYING and claiming that our default position on everything is "more government."
Can you do that? Can you making a coherent argument?
WHAT?!? Do you know the first thing about what a natural monopoly is, because it certainly looks like you do not.
And this does not even get into the arbitrary enforcement of regulations that government already has a problem with.
Yet you support antitrust enforcement. You're a bundle of nonsense.
On the post: FBI's Bust Of Black Open Carry Advocate Predicated On An InfoWars Video Ends In Dismissed Indictment
Re: Who cares?
Here at TD the mantra is "more government"... this is more government you silly fucks.
Why do you keep lying?
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20180512/09405039824/uk-cops-threaten-facebook-users-with-a rrest-after-they-mock-departments-tiny-drug-bust.shtml#c291
On the post: UK Cops Threaten Facebook Users With Arrest After They Mock Department's Tiny Drug Bust
Re:
Says a website dedicated to advancing the notion of government controlled economy and regulatory agency.
Every single freaking time you post this, I explain to you that this is wrong. And yet you post it again.
So, let's do this AGAIN: we are not advocating for "government controlled economy" in any way at all. In fact, in nearly all cases, we advocate for less regulation and less government interference. In ONE SPECIFIC AREA, we advocate for LIMITED rules by the FCC to protect competition and an open internet. And we've explained why this is IN LINE with our general belief of keeping government out of the regulatory game:
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20171210/01533638775/free-market-argument-net-neutrality.sht ml
You, yourself, has admitted that you TOO are fine with government regulation in some narrow cases, involving antitrust. Yet, no one then turns around and blatantly lies, accusing you of supporting "government control" in all cases.
So why the fuck do you continue to do that to us?
Stop it. Grow the fuck up.
On the post: The Clock Is Ticking: Get Your Copy Of CIA: Collect It All On Kickstarter!
Re:
On the post: EU Commission Asks Public To Weigh In On Survey About Just How Much They Want The Internet To Be Censored
Re: TECHDIRT HYPOCRISY
Ha, ha, ha!... Mike Masnick is "concerned" about the EU Commission's hidden agenda to instigate censorship of the Net, while he openly allows clique Techdirters to "red flag" the comments of others!... whereby, the "dissented comments" of the flagged can be removed from clique Techdirters' site view!
What is the hypocrisy here? Can you explain it, because I don't see any. My concern is over governments telling platforms that they MUST filter sites in the way in which the government insists they must or face legal consequences.
That's entirely different than platforms choosing to filter content the way they feel is proper for their community.
Do you not see the difference?
On the post: EU Commission Asks Public To Weigh In On Survey About Just How Much They Want The Internet To Be Censored
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You’ve said you do not subscribe to Netflix or HBO, so which ones do you pay for?
Correct. Not because I don't want to give them money (as you implied), but because I just don't have enough time to watch the stuff that's on there. I did pay for Amazon Prime and Hulu in the past, but stopped both when I realized I don't use them enough. I figure someday, when I have more time, I'll probably end up subscribing to Netflix. I just don't have the time to watch Netflix content regularly.
Currently I pay for Spotify (and have since the day it launched in the US) and then regularly pay for non-subscription streaming services, including Redbox and Vudu (to rent movies). I also pay regularly for streaming educational videos. I also pay for MLB's streaming service (and have since it launched).
So, yeah. The idea that I refuse to pay for streaming services is simply made up in your head. You took the fact that I once noted I don't subscribe to two particular streaming services and falsely assumed that I refuse to subscribe to any and therefore I must pirate.
Let's see if you'll admit that you jumped to conclusions and was wrong. I doubt it.
On the post: EU Commission Asks Public To Weigh In On Survey About Just How Much They Want The Internet To Be Censored
Re: Re: Re:
He’s said numerous times that he refuses to pay money for any of the streaming/cable services.
Can you point to where I said that, because it's not even remotely true. I have paid for streaming and cable and satellite services. I do currently pay for some streaming services and have for years. I also pay for individual piece of content at times. What I do NOT do is pirate content.
The fact that I advocate against copyright overreach and in favor of rethinking copyright does not mean that I must automatically refuse to live under the existing laws. Indeed, I take pride in doing everything possible to live by the existing laws to better understand just how silly many of them are.
Again, you have a strawman built up in your head about me, and it's kind of hilarious how wrong it is.
On the post: EU Commission Asks Public To Weigh In On Survey About Just How Much They Want The Internet To Be Censored
Re:
Mike Masnick- you pirate the HBO shows that you watch; should you really be criticizing here?
Huh? This is not even remotely true. I'm amused that you think so. Why would you say such a thing?
I find it hilarious that everyone insists I must pirate content. I don't. What I find most amazing is that I even had an industry exec admit to me that HE pirates stuff, and when I explained that I don't, he seemed shocked, saying that everyone does it. Sometimes I wonder if the reason the industry is so anti-piracy is because they're the biggest pirates.
On the post: While Facebook Gets All The Hate, Verizon Continues To Show It's No Better, And Potentially Much Worse For Privacy
Re:
TD should be lobbying its Silicon Valley friends and patrons to lead the way in pivoting from a data theft business model to something more sustainable. Because it's going to happen anyway. Google could come out of it a hero if it plays it properly.
Did you see what I wrote in the post exactly one before this one about what Facebook should be doing?
On the post: Facebook Ranking News Sources By Trust Is A Bad Idea... But No One At Facebook Will Read Our Untrustworthy Analysis
Re: Do you EVER, for even ten seconds, worry about GOOGLE?
Astute enough to spot which GIANT "platform" is left out? As always here.]
Er, YouTube is Google. The reason I included YouTube rather than Google in general is that YouTube is Google's primary user generated content platform, and thus the main platform that people are demanding have their content moderated on...
On the post: Sprint, T-Mobile Try To Sell The Public On A Job-Killing, Competition Eroding Megamerger
Re: Re: Re: Re: Noose vs Axe
TD is firmly a proponent of regulations that prevent that competitive element. I would be happy to be proven wrong, but I don't think I will.
We have responded to you on this claim multiple times, explained in great detail why you're wrong and why we support competition and less regulation in nearly all circumstances.
Your response is... to ignore that and pretend that your made up "what TD wants" is reality.
What do we say about someone who denies reality?
On the post: Swedish Pirate Party Declares War On Copyright Trolls
Re: Re: No, "worst kinds of copyright problems" are to prevent piracy.
On the post: Turns Out Lots Of People Want To Play The CIA's Card Game
Re:
Anonymous Coward, 25 Apr 2018 @ 10:19pm This game will be available for free right? I don’t feel like paying for the Kickstarter but I want the game, so you’re going to let me have it, right?
The FOIA files are free for everyone. Have at it. Isn't the public domain wonderful?
On the post: The CIA Made A Card Game... And We're Releasing It
Re: awww so cute
always nice to see basic criminals and murderers get rehabilitated into pop cultural heroes.
Can you explain how that's actually happening with this, because I don't see it?
On the post: The CIA Made A Card Game... And We're Releasing It
Re:
On the post: How Twitter Suspended The Account Of One Of Our Commenters... For Offending Himself?
Re: Re: Re: the coddled "safe space" crybaby generation
Next >>