If I made a site called CyberMud, reposted all of your articles, and marketed it as an alternative to TechDirt would I really be innovative in any capacity?
You would if you could figure out how to attract an audience to that site. In which case, that would be interesting and we could all learn from you how you were able to build an audience around copied content.
Could you expound upon why the exclusion of corporate sovereignty and thus diminishment of ISDS is a problem?
Nowhere does the article assert that. For years, we've pointed out why ISDS clauses are a huge problem. In other words, the opposite of what you seem to suggest the article says.
However I've read a million articles on here about your supposedly anonymized being sold and that with a couple of cross references it's personally identifiable.
Can you point to where we've said that? Because I'm pretty sure we've said the exact opposite:
For what it's worth, both Patagonia and Helly Hanson are pretty well known brands in California (my snowboarding jacket and pants are from Helly Hanson).
I've been boarding for decades, and I can't say that I've ever heard of Patagonia outside of the Top Gear episode. Which kinda adds some credibility to AB's claims of nonuse, and abandonment.
What, really? It's... everywhere, at least where I am. I mean, it's so everywhere that it's kind of a cliche. It's like Starbucks. It's such a cliche that the "VC Starter Kit" joke thing includes a Patagonia vest: https://vcstarterkit.com/
Uh, we've told you before, but I have no idea what that site is and have nothing to do with it. Someone is copying posts from here to there. And, of course, that's totally fine by me. We have said many times that people are free to copy our content wherever they like.
You seem (1) incredibly obsessed over really odd things and (2) wildly prone to making wildly wrong assumptions. You do it here all the time. I'm not entirely sure I understand what you think you're doing other than making yourself look like a paranoid fool.
(For what it's worth, you're also wrong about our spam filters. You get caught in it because you comments frequently are determined to be spammish -- not because of any "locking down." And I'm fine with criticism. I just wish it was actually productive as opposed to the complete nonsense you post).
Also, for what it's worth, I've noticed a few times recently that you've actually dropped your act and posted normal, reasonable, comments. You should do more of that. They were good comments. And you'll note that the community didn't flag them.
From the comparison against surveillance-style ad tracking, my best guess is that the idea is advertising from someone (i.e., the "brand") who looks at the potential market area (e.g., Techdirt) and says "this place is full of people interested in X, I should put some ads there for my new product cool_X_thing". That wouldn't require any tracking or other behavior, just putting advertising in a spot where people who might be interested are likely to congregate.
Yup. That's basically what brand advertising is... It's not about "action" (click to buy!) or about getting data for more specific targeting. It's about putting your brand in a place where people who you know generally might be interested in your products/services will place their attention.
It does note that Bloomberg is spearheading this campaign against vaping and that it appears to be a moral panic. But you made a different claim: "Yes, websites knowingly published outright lies and health scares about vaping because Michael Bloomberg paid for it."
Which websites *knowingly published outright lies and health scares... because Michael Bloomberg paid for it." I agree that Bloomberg's campaign is bullshit, but you made an explicit claim that news sources are deliberately and knowingly lying. The Reason article does not say that. It does suggest that many news sources may believe Bloomberg's campaign, and thus a narrative gets spun up. That happens. It sucks, but it happens.
But that is not proof -- as you have claimed -- that news sites are doing this just to get Bloomberg's money.
There's literally 1000 pages of leaked Google docs that prove they are rigging search.
If you're the media, there absolutely is. You are simply wrong.
There is no problem with the White House revoking a press pass.
As multiple courts have held, you are wrong.
The only problem is arbitrarily revoking one without warning to stifle free speech.
No. The courts have held multiple reasons for why a press pass can't be revoked. Arbitrariness is one reason. Lack of due process is another. Viewpoint discrimination is another.
They basically have shown that the revoking was arbitrary and capricious and discriminatory.
In other words, multiple reasons why the White House cannot deny a press pass.
There is no right to a press pass because if there is where is your press pass Mike?
What a weird statement. I don't have a press pass because I've never requested one, nor would I want to request one. I don't need or want a White House press pass as we don't cover "the White House," and it would be a waste of our time. However, if we did request one, the White House would have to give us one as we meet all of the basic criteria (not for a hard pass -- which requires a regular presence in the White House, but that's not based on viewpoint/content, and thus is a reasonable restriction).
It's one thing to respond in a calm and measured manner showing why and how they're wrong, which just makes the troll look even worse in comparison, but when people sink to their level and start responding in nothing but insults and childish claims then at that point the troll has won.
This I agree with entirely. I actually think thoughtful, detailed responses to the trolls can (potentially) add to the conversation and thinking here -- and frequently do. The childish responses, for the most part, do not (sometimes there are clever jokes in response, though, and the line between those may not always be entirely clear).
I get that it's frustrating when it's so obvious that trolls are not discussing points in good faith or with any sort of intellectual honesty -- and that frustrates me as well. Of course, that's one of the goals of the trolling.
But thoughtful careful responses are something that I do still think are good, and the whole idea that those responses are "feeding the trolls" doesn't hold much water for me, because everyone can still learn from the thoughtful replies, and they're useful because there are times when there are people who legitimately believe in the same confused point that the trolls are passing off disingenuously (and, yes, at this point it's fairly obvious that the particular troll everyone is discussing is not at all serious in his comments, but is a garden variety troll).
Re: Turn this problem over to unaccountable corporations!
As Masnick wishes, a Section 230 for transport industries so immune and empowered, zero 'splainin, zero recourse, can charge people to even go to arbitration which they'll never win -- and to hell with that "goddam piece of paper".
The big question is who is healthier the vaccinated or the unvaccinated??? Look at the study that Peter Abby did. The unvaccinated are healthier..... look at the Pilot comparative study on the health of vaccinated and unvaccinated 6- to 12- year old U.S. children
Re: @TD: Please don't use "Pro Tip" directed at your readership
Yeah, I'll take it into consideration that a bigoted commenter who doesn't understand immigration is mad at my language choices... and I'll file it appropriately.
The author outs himself as an rabid anti-anti-vaxer, apparently labeling any questioning of the efficacy or potential risks associated with a vaccination as automatically "nonsense".
If there were credible information to back up the anti-vax position, you'd have a point. There is not. There is none. There is junk science, conmen, and scams. And believing in such nonsense is literally killing people. If, at some point, credible information is put forth about harms from vaccines, then that would be interesting. To date they don't exist. To date there are just rabid idiots spewing nonsense. Don't be one of them.
I'm all for free speech, but I'm not for forcing platforms to host nonsense that kills people.
Everyone keeps telling me that we only run pro-Google/Facebook stories (despite lots of our stories criticizing them), and now you run this. How are we going to keep the trolls screeching about how we only support Google and Facebook when you go and publish stories like this? Sheesh...
Mike, this is essentially what the GDPR provides. Do you have any real, legitimate complaints about how the law was written or is there some serious cognitive dissonance here?
How has the GDPR made it clearer to anyone what the downstream risks of sharing my data are? Or what the possible costs and benefits are?
On the post: People Freaking Out About Amazon Copying A Shoe Are Totally Missing The Point
Re: Copying Is How Innovation Happens
If I made a site called CyberMud, reposted all of your articles, and marketed it as an alternative to TechDirt would I really be innovative in any capacity?
You would if you could figure out how to attract an audience to that site. In which case, that would be interesting and we could all learn from you how you were able to build an audience around copied content.
On the post: Another Nail In the Coffin Of Corporate Sovereignty, As Massive Asian Trade Deal RCEP Nears Completion Without It
Re:
Could you expound upon why the exclusion of corporate sovereignty and thus diminishment of ISDS is a problem?
Nowhere does the article assert that. For years, we've pointed out why ISDS clauses are a huge problem. In other words, the opposite of what you seem to suggest the article says.
On the post: Security Researchers Whose 'Penetration Test' Involved Breaking And Entering Now Facing Criminal Charges
The line between pentesting and bank robbery
When I first saw this story it reminded me of this fairly hilarious story about a pen test team that decided to rob a bank because they could:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RJVHTQSvUIo
On the post: Senator Hawley Responds To Techdirt With A Bunch Of Nonsense And Lies About His Own Bill That He Doesn't Seem To Understand
Re: me thinks you doeth protest too much.....
like everything you write, almost without exception, is to protect the interests of big corporate ass-ets.
Must be why we published pieces about how to build a better internet that takes down the big corporate companies:
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20190825/21540442853/protocols-not-platforms-technologi cal-approach-to-free-speech.shtml
Or how about the time we mocked the big companies for their tone deaf attempts to undermine privacy rules:
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20190903/08283242910/facebook-twitter-hope-to-fix-californi as-troubled-privacy-law-withmisleading-ads.shtml?threaded=false
Or the many times we've called out their privacy flubs:
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20190321/13060141846/facebook-screws-up-again.shtml
I think you're thinking we're a different site than we are.
cutting yourself another piece of pai?
I'm not even sure what this insult is supposed to mean? Are you suggesting that we're supportive of FCC chair Pai? Or against him?
On the post: Senator Hawley Responds To Techdirt With A Bunch Of Nonsense And Lies About His Own Bill That He Doesn't Seem To Understand
Re:
However I've read a million articles on here about your supposedly anonymized being sold and that with a couple of cross references it's personally identifiable.
Can you point to where we've said that? Because I'm pretty sure we've said the exact opposite:
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20180320/18011039462/facebook-has-many-sins-to-atone-sel ling-data-to-cambridge-analytica-is-not-one-them.shtml
So if you could point to one of the "million articles" that would be helpful.
On the post: AB InBev Fails To Get 'Patagonia' Trademark Suit Dismissed
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
For what it's worth, both Patagonia and Helly Hanson are pretty well known brands in California (my snowboarding jacket and pants are from Helly Hanson).
On the post: AB InBev Fails To Get 'Patagonia' Trademark Suit Dismissed
Re: Patagonia who?
I've been boarding for decades, and I can't say that I've ever heard of Patagonia outside of the Top Gear episode. Which kinda adds some credibility to AB's claims of nonuse, and abandonment.
What, really? It's... everywhere, at least where I am. I mean, it's so everywhere that it's kind of a cliche. It's like Starbucks. It's such a cliche that the "VC Starter Kit" joke thing includes a Patagonia vest: https://vcstarterkit.com/
On the post: This Week In Techdirt History: September 8th - 14th
Re:
Uh, we've told you before, but I have no idea what that site is and have nothing to do with it. Someone is copying posts from here to there. And, of course, that's totally fine by me. We have said many times that people are free to copy our content wherever they like.
You seem (1) incredibly obsessed over really odd things and (2) wildly prone to making wildly wrong assumptions. You do it here all the time. I'm not entirely sure I understand what you think you're doing other than making yourself look like a paranoid fool.
(For what it's worth, you're also wrong about our spam filters. You get caught in it because you comments frequently are determined to be spammish -- not because of any "locking down." And I'm fine with criticism. I just wish it was actually productive as opposed to the complete nonsense you post).
Also, for what it's worth, I've noticed a few times recently that you've actually dropped your act and posted normal, reasonable, comments. You should do more of that. They were good comments. And you'll note that the community didn't flag them.
On the post: THE Ohio State University Loses Its Trademark Application For 'THE'
Re: Spam
The full on spam does get removed -- once we've seen it (but they never get SEO juice -- check the links)
On the post: Yes, News Sites Need To Get Out Of The Ad Surveillance Business -- But Blame The Advertisers As Well
Re: brand?
From the comparison against surveillance-style ad tracking, my best guess is that the idea is advertising from someone (i.e., the "brand") who looks at the potential market area (e.g., Techdirt) and says "this place is full of people interested in X, I should put some ads there for my new product cool_X_thing". That wouldn't require any tracking or other behavior, just putting advertising in a spot where people who might be interested are likely to congregate.
Yup. That's basically what brand advertising is... It's not about "action" (click to buy!) or about getting data for more specific targeting. It's about putting your brand in a place where people who you know generally might be interested in your products/services will place their attention.
On the post: Yes, News Sites Need To Get Out Of The Ad Surveillance Business -- But Blame The Advertisers As Well
Re: Re: Re: News Sites Need To Do News Again
There's literally a story about Bloomberg's fake vaping PR nonsense on Reason.
You should link to the story you mean, so that people can see that you're full of shit. Here it is: https://reason.com/2019/09/11/michael-bloombergs-anti-vaping-crusade-is-objectively-pro-tobacco/
It does note that Bloomberg is spearheading this campaign against vaping and that it appears to be a moral panic. But you made a different claim: "Yes, websites knowingly published outright lies and health scares about vaping because Michael Bloomberg paid for it."
Which websites *knowingly published outright lies and health scares... because Michael Bloomberg paid for it." I agree that Bloomberg's campaign is bullshit, but you made an explicit claim that news sources are deliberately and knowingly lying. The Reason article does not say that. It does suggest that many news sources may believe Bloomberg's campaign, and thus a narrative gets spun up. That happens. It sucks, but it happens.
But that is not proof -- as you have claimed -- that news sites are doing this just to get Bloomberg's money.
There's literally 1000 pages of leaked Google docs that prove they are rigging search.
No there is not:
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20190815/18023542791/latest-google-whistleblower-to-prove-ant i-conservative-bias-doesnt-prove-anything-appears-to-be-bigoted-conspiracy-theorist.shtml
On the post: Techdirt Podcast Episode 224: Trying To Be Optimistic About The Internet
Re: Re: It's impossible to be optimistic.
You seem to associate was is quite obviously a small bug with malice. Why?
Also, I checked and, yes, you can absolutely block Bloomberg:
https://i.imgur.com/Zh1aw94.png
Anyway, none of this has ANYTHING to do with what we discussed in the podcast.
On the post: Judge Orders White House To Restore Reporter's Press Pass It Illegally Removed
Re: You're misrepresenting the judge here
There is no right to a White House press pass.
If you're the media, there absolutely is. You are simply wrong.
There is no problem with the White House revoking a press pass.
As multiple courts have held, you are wrong.
The only problem is arbitrarily revoking one without warning to stifle free speech.
No. The courts have held multiple reasons for why a press pass can't be revoked. Arbitrariness is one reason. Lack of due process is another. Viewpoint discrimination is another.
They basically have shown that the revoking was arbitrary and capricious and discriminatory.
In other words, multiple reasons why the White House cannot deny a press pass.
There is no right to a press pass because if there is where is your press pass Mike?
What a weird statement. I don't have a press pass because I've never requested one, nor would I want to request one. I don't need or want a White House press pass as we don't cover "the White House," and it would be a waste of our time. However, if we did request one, the White House would have to give us one as we meet all of the basic criteria (not for a hard pass -- which requires a regular presence in the White House, but that's not based on viewpoint/content, and thus is a reasonable restriction).
On the post: Judge Orders White House To Restore Reporter's Press Pass It Illegally Removed
Re: Hard perhaps, but still worthwhile
It's one thing to respond in a calm and measured manner showing why and how they're wrong, which just makes the troll look even worse in comparison, but when people sink to their level and start responding in nothing but insults and childish claims then at that point the troll has won.
This I agree with entirely. I actually think thoughtful, detailed responses to the trolls can (potentially) add to the conversation and thinking here -- and frequently do. The childish responses, for the most part, do not (sometimes there are clever jokes in response, though, and the line between those may not always be entirely clear).
I get that it's frustrating when it's so obvious that trolls are not discussing points in good faith or with any sort of intellectual honesty -- and that frustrates me as well. Of course, that's one of the goals of the trolling.
But thoughtful careful responses are something that I do still think are good, and the whole idea that those responses are "feeding the trolls" doesn't hold much water for me, because everyone can still learn from the thoughtful replies, and they're useful because there are times when there are people who legitimately believe in the same confused point that the trolls are passing off disingenuously (and, yes, at this point it's fairly obvious that the particular troll everyone is discussing is not at all serious in his comments, but is a garden variety troll).
On the post: Federal Court Says The DHS's Terrorist Watchlist Unconstitutionally Deprives Travelers Of Their Rights
Re: Turn this problem over to unaccountable corporations!
As Masnick wishes, a Section 230 for transport industries so immune and empowered, zero 'splainin, zero recourse, can charge people to even go to arbitration which they'll never win -- and to hell with that "goddam piece of paper".
This is incomprehensible, even for you.
On the post: Pinterest's Way Of Dealing With Anti-Vax Nonsense And Scams Is Only Possible Because Of Section 230
Re:
The big question is who is healthier the vaccinated or the unvaccinated??? Look at the study that Peter Abby did. The unvaccinated are healthier..... look at the Pilot comparative study on the health of vaccinated and unvaccinated 6- to 12- year old U.S. children
Anthony R Mawson
Um. Nope. https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/no-two-studies-purporting-to-show-that-vaccinated-children-are-sick er-than-unvaccinated-children-show-nothing-of-the-sort/
On the post: Pro Tip: Don't Send A Completely Bogus Defamation Threat To A Website That Employs A Former ACLU Badass
Re: @TD: Please don't use "Pro Tip" directed at your readership
Yeah, I'll take it into consideration that a bigoted commenter who doesn't understand immigration is mad at my language choices... and I'll file it appropriately.
On the post: Pinterest's Way Of Dealing With Anti-Vax Nonsense And Scams Is Only Possible Because Of Section 230
Re: Thanks so much for your intolerance!
The author outs himself as an rabid anti-anti-vaxer, apparently labeling any questioning of the efficacy or potential risks associated with a vaccination as automatically "nonsense".
If there were credible information to back up the anti-vax position, you'd have a point. There is not. There is none. There is junk science, conmen, and scams. And believing in such nonsense is literally killing people. If, at some point, credible information is put forth about harms from vaccines, then that would be interesting. To date they don't exist. To date there are just rabid idiots spewing nonsense. Don't be one of them.
I'm all for free speech, but I'm not for forcing platforms to host nonsense that kills people.
On the post: Facebook And Twitter Hope To Fix California's Troubled Privacy Law With...Misleading Ads?
Now Karl...
Everyone keeps telling me that we only run pro-Google/Facebook stories (despite lots of our stories criticizing them), and now you run this. How are we going to keep the trolls screeching about how we only support Google and Facebook when you go and publish stories like this? Sheesh...
On the post: The Conflict Between Social Media Transparency And Bad Privacy Laws Is Going To Get Worse
Re: Wha... But... I don't even.
Mike, this is essentially what the GDPR provides. Do you have any real, legitimate complaints about how the law was written or is there some serious cognitive dissonance here?
How has the GDPR made it clearer to anyone what the downstream risks of sharing my data are? Or what the possible costs and benefits are?
Next >>