Are existing monthly donations handled by Beacon in any way?
If you're just supporting us directly via the Insider Shop, then no. Those are handled directly by us, and you don't need to change anything. For people who were paying us monthly via Beacon, they should have received notice a while back that those charges were no longer happening.
This is just another, different way for people to support what we do (and, in particular, to support the podcast).
I should have added, they went after Trump while ignoring the controversy around Hillary.
This is not even remotely true. The controversy around Clinton's email servers got a ridiculous amount of coverage. It was interesting to us here, because that was an issue that we had strong opinions on, but it far outweighed the seriousness of ths issue, and paled in comparison to coverage of Trump's equally problematic issues.
They ignored Wikileaks almost completely. Just like you are doing here.
Wha....? We covered Wikileaks and the press was ALL OVER Wikileaks leaks. The problem was that most of them were a giant nothingburger. Oh, the campaign had lunch with the press. That's what reporters do. They cultivate sources. The biggest revelation in the leaks was the Donna Brazile sending questions over (something we did cover).
The left are the ones living in their safe space bubble. After all, you don't see conservatives needing playdoh and puppy therapy on college campuses
Huh? What does that have to do with anything that we're discussing.
But when you call BS on Trump while completely ignoring the same BS or worse on Hillary and the DNC, then I have a problem.
That's the fucking problem here. I called out Clinton just as much as Trump during the campaign. And now she lost. There's nothing to cover on her any more. So I'm covering Trump and his idiotic statements just as I would now be covering Clinton and her idiotic statements.
Why don't you understand that?
But yes, I will immediately unsubscribe to this blog. Your angry, bitter posts have ruined this place and that is a real shame because you had a good thing going here.
You are the one asking people to leave so who is it exactly that is looking for a safe space?
The reference to a safe space is because all of you who keep falsely insisting that we've somehow become "biased" because we call out Trump's actions (just as we've called out Obama's) is somehow "bad" for this blog. It's as if you simply can't take anyone calling bullshit on the guy you support, and therefore are somehow demanding that we become a safe space for you. So, yes, I'm mocking the fact that folks who support Trump keep insisting they're against "safe spaces" but seem to be demanding that Techdirt become a kind of safe space.
I'm not demanding anyone leave. I'm just telling those who are threatening to leave as an attempt to make me change what I say that I don't care. I'm not doing this to make this a happy space for anyone. I'm doing this to speak my opinion on various matters, just as I always have. You can stay if you want. I'm not kicking anyone out. I'm just saying that if you're going to scream and whine about how you're going to leave if I keep calling bullshit on Trump, then leave. Don't act like you need to pressure me into changing my views.
Better question to be asking: why do these MILLIONS of people not have valid ID? (Or, to put it another way, if 90-99% of Americans can do it, what's stopping these guys?)
Great to see folks out there defending authoritarian bullshit like this. Come on, guys, you're better than this. There's a reason we don't require people to have a federal ID and if you don't understand that, you should do more research.
That is a problem even if Mike is 100% correct. It has been my observation that everyone yelling Bias is Biased, and I agree to being biased. Plus there is just no reason to alienate any potential readers. You cannot have good instruction if the first thing you students learn about you is that you think they suck and they need to leave!
Of course I have biases. And this is and always has been an opinion site in which I express my opinions. But calling Infowars a crackpot conspiracy theory site is not "bias." Facts are not "biased." InfoWars is a crackpot conspiracy theory site. Period.
Am I biased? Sure. I'm biased in favor of free expression, innovation, and civil liberties. I'm biased in favor of expanding an open internet and supporting competition.
I freely admit to these "biases." But having someone complain over calling InfoWars a crackpot site? That's ridiculous. If you don't think it's a crackpot site the problem is on your end, not mine.
Mike is biased, he just needs to admit it, there is nothing wrong with it, it's just a word... apparently a word he does not understand the meaning of while calling others ignorant of it in hypocrisy.
I understand the word just fine. It does not mean what you think it means. I'm not "biased" against InfoWars. I just am properly describing what kind of site it is.
Careful what you wish for, vitriol and bigotry are very blinding problems every human faces. You should consider conquering yours before you drive away others that will not want to stand next to you from the fallout alone. Not only that, but if all you do is spend your time preaching to the choir then your message will not get very far will it? It will die like the church that thinks membership should be exclusive.
There is no "bigotry" in calling out a crackpot conspiracy site for being a crackpot conspiracy site. Unlike many others in this thread, I'm not blaming "the left" or "the right" for anything.
My views have remained entirely consistent. If some of you supported this site because we spoke out against Obama's many abuses, and when we called out Clinton's bullshit statements, you should also support us when we call out Trump's bullshit statements.
That you seem to think that we've suddenly changed our position because the guy you like is in power, well, then the problem is on your end.
Our position has remained consistent throughout. We have not become any more "political" nor have we changed our positions on anything. We've written about e-voting and voter fraud for well over a decade. This article is well within our wheelhouse. And we've called out politicians for saying bullshit things for just as long.
If you can't handle someone who isn't rooting for a team, but is actually supporting civil liberties, free speech and innovation, then go find a safe space to go crawl in, rather than spending time here.
In a nutshell you are the exact problem with America. You have 'decided' that a certain group of people should be marginalized and ridiculed. Whether they are correct or not is besides the point when it gets to that level, but your constant need to raise the stakes means someone or something over there has your billy goat.
Which "group of people" have I decided should be marginalized and ridiculed? I have not. The only people I'm ridiculing are crackpots and liars. They deserve to be ridiculed, not because they're a part of a "group" I dislike, but because they're crackpots and liars.
You sound exactly like the left vs the right problem America has. Try engaging with a smile on your face instead of spit and vinegar. Besides, if they are a crackpot organization... why are you even wasting your time chatting about them?
You were perfectly happy with the exact same tone being used on this site when the guy you didn't like was in power.
And the reason we're talking about InfoWars is because our President Elect seems to be using their crackpot conspiracy theories as the basis for making completely bullshit statements.
That's kind of a big deal. How is this even up for debate?
Did you not learn anything from Wikileaks? The press is in the back pocket of the DNC.
That's not actually what the Wikileaks hacks revealed.
They went after Trump like rabid dogs. Much like you are doing since he won the election. That is very much part of the reason he won.
They went after Trump because he's a horribly unprepared candidate with massive conflicts of interests, and a history of outright fabrications. And they didn't do nearly enough, frankly, as they spent a lot more time focusing on fake scandals about Clinton. I'm no fan of Clinton either but the idea that the press were stenographers for her, when they repeated a bunch of bogus claims against her is laughable.
The press loves sensational stories, no matter which side it's coming from.
Seriously, if these kind of articles continue, I will drop TD from my news reader.
"This kind of article"? You think that calling out someone for arguing the press should be stenographers is a problem? Then go away now. Bye bye.
If I want to read angry leftist rants, I can get that in any newspaper or on 3 of the 4 major TV networks.
Nothing in what I wrote is an angry leftist rant, because I'm not an angry leftist and my views are not leftist by a long shot.
If you can't take someone calling bullshit on Trump, and you have to falsely label anyone who does so a "leftist" then go find a comfy safe space for the bullshit you want to hear. We don't play that game.
Lemme guess... you just read the headline? Didya actually read the article? (Rhetorical question, its obvious you didn't.)
I absolutely did read the article. And it was conspiracy theory claptrap.
NOWHERE in that article did it purport to agree with the statements being reported on by Steve Watson and made by Greg Phillips of the VoteFraud.org organization.
Bullshit. It absolutely did agree with it. Nowhere did it point out that the claim had no evidence to back it up. Instead, the Infowars piece repeated the claims and then highlighted how it might mean Trump won the popular vote. It also repeated the silly and meaningless statistic about dead people on voter rolls -- which is a clear sign of a conspiracy theorist, since there is basically no evidence of dead people on voter rolls being used for fraud.
I'm sorry, but the Infowars piece clearly pushed the totally bullshit claim that millions of people voted illegally. So, yeah, it's a crackpot conspiracy theory from a crackpot conspiracy site. Deal with it.
Re: The Laughable Postion of Democrats on the Integrity of Voting
The Democrats have gone to great extremes to remove virtually all impediments to voting.
Making it easier for people to vote is a good thing. You disagree?
Furthermore, the Democrats have advocated that voter fraud is inconsequential and would not have an adverse effect on voting.
It's not "the Democrats advocating" this, it's the truth. Voter fraud is inconsequential, and current voting systems, which don't require ID, have worked perfectly fine in stopping most voter fraud. It's just not a serious problem at all.
Well, if they where really concerned about the "truth" the Democrats would not be so adamantly opposed to the creation of paper trails that would document the eligibility of the voters.
Except, that's also hogwash. I'm all for a paper trail on actual votes. But the "documents" to prove eligibility of voters is nothing but a voter suppression technique, designed to stop certain groups from voting.
When did Techdirt become an add site and not a tech information site
Hmm. A few things. First, many of our readers seem to like the various deal posts we have on the site, and offering them good deals, which also help support Techdirt, seems to make a lot of sense. Second, would you prefer that we shut down the site entirely, rather than coming up with ways that help us stay in business while also providing good deals for our readers?
I recognize that people get annoyed at overly aggressive advertising, but I think we do a pretty good job of keeping such things to a minimum. Is this one post really so problematic for you that you couldn't just move on to the next post?
Let's examine the Smartmatic DRE servicing software, owned by left wing activist billionaire George Soros that company is contracted with over 300 counties in 16 different swing states.
Anyone making this claim is proving themselves to be an idiot. The above statement is a totally false conspiracy theory that has no basis in reality. It was passed around on some fake news sites, but it is not true.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Elections have consequences
Richard, you're fucking hilarious. If you weren't so wrong about everything I'd think you were peformance art.
So if your nonchanging views are evidence that you're not a shill, then why do you falsely accuse me of being a shill despite my non-changing views? Also, you fucking work for AEI. I run my own small shop. And, yes, we make money from lots of different things, including direct support from our community, t-shirt sales, advertising and events. And, hell, I also make money from expert witnessing.
So since you pulled out the bullshit shill claim first: why is it okay for you to pull it out? I'm not the one who works for a think tank famous for shilling for giant monopolist's interests. You are. I'm not famous for flat out lying about technology policy. You are.
You do realize that you're the climate change denialist of the tech world, right?
No. Unlike you I live in reality. You are in fantasy land, as per usual.
The head of Google Fiber has left the company and the "Access" division has laid off 10% of its staff, more than 100 workers. Google has some ongoing projects to dabble around in, but it's safe to say that the dream that Google Fiber would wire the nation has blown up.
Yes, as noted, Google has changed its focus with Access, but not because of TII. Also, no one EVER said that it would "wire the nation." That's pure bullshit from you and your idiot friends trying to rewrite history.
The layoffs were for some of the additional fiber projects that they've decided to back out of, mainly because of your paymasters blocking them at every turn on things like one touch make ready.
Sure, the company will still buy bankrupt munis and maybe do something with wireless - if they can figure out how wireless works - but that's about all.
"If they can figure out how wireless works." They bought one of the most successful wireless ISPs in SF. Once again, what are you smoking?
As far as ISPs' history with advertising goes, I'm sure you're aware that GoogBook has been fighting them at the gate since the late 00s. T2 makes regulatory arbitrage easier, but before T2 GoogBook was whining about DPI. Congress held hearings on that nonsense from the 2005 onward.
You really don't know a fucking thing, do you? The fight over DPI is not Google protecting its ad revenue, but about protecting user privacy from ISP snooping. And it wasn't led by Google or Facebook, but THE PUBLIC. You know, the group of people you're looking to fuck over for shits, giggles and tons of cash.
Ask your overlords for a fuller briefing, they know the story.
Oh, and of course, you conclude with a made up conspiracy theory. I have no overlords. I know, I know, since YOU DO GET YOUR MARCHING ORDERS from the big telcos, you have to assume that actual honest people must also be shills. You're wrong. And deluded.
I'd tell you to grow up, but I think we've long concluded that you're a perpetually ignorant child, Richard.
Dude, are you high? Since Title II was imposed Google Fiber shut down.
I don't do drugs. But, seriously, I'm curious what you're smoking, because dang, dude, you're fucked up.
Google Fiber didn't shut down. They did change priorities, but not because of Title II.
At the same time, others have entered the market, though you and your friends have helped to block off competition through bullshit crony laws in states barring real competition. You must be so proud.
It was supposed to be the savior of our sad urban markets where it's virtually impossible to get a connection above 300 Mbps.
Don't rewrite history.
Title II has everything to do with advertising because it required the FCC to create privacy regulations for ISPs. This mandate allowed Wheeler to require opt-in for access to data by ISPs that's opt-out for Google and Facebook.
Look, I know you think you have expertise, but you're pulling this completely out of your ass. Yes, Title II allowed the new privacy rules, but those were passed what, 3 weeks ago? Why aren't Verizon or AT&T powerhouses in advertising in all these years they've had? What will suddenly make them able to take ad revenue away from Google and Facebook.
You have no clue what you're talking about.
Is this public policy stuff completely over your head or what?
You're funny, dude. You've been wrong for, what, three decades now? How much longer is this going to go on?
The sooner the FCC or Congress removes broadband from Title II, the better off we'll all be.
Huh? Richard, since the rules passed, we've seen more new entrants and more service upgrades. How do you figure we'll be better off moving in the other direction?
Except for Google and Facebook, it's going to suck for them to have competition in the advertising market.
That has absolutely fuck all to do with Title II. I'd love to see more competition in the ad market too, but removing broadband from Title II won't have any impact on that at all. And, you seem to ignore the fact that Google wasn't on the Title II bandwagon, even as folks like yourself like to pretend it was.
Mike, you're entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts, like the old saying goes. "Chilling effect" has a particular legal definition and argumentation, and cannot simply be argued however it may be convenient like you do in this article.
That's not true. Chilling effect does not have a special legal definition and argumentation. It's just a descriptive phrase. And it was used accurately and appropriately here.
While correctly argued in your opinions of Trump's libel threats, you've also erred trying to mangle it to cover pretty much any 100%-First-Amendment-protected stated counterpoints to media reports ("attacking") or any (B.S.?) claims of negative business performance that politicians may make.
What did I get wrong? You say that I'm wrong, but you don't say how. I never said that Trump was not allowed to say what he said, I pointed out why it was scary and dangerous that he was literally lying about publicly traded companies, something that could adversely impact shareholders. That's crazy for a President or President-elect to do -- and that's why I was concerned -- accurately -- about the chilling effects of Trump's statements.
You don't explain why they are wrong. You just disagree.
here you somehow manage to come off as a unfactual whiny hack*
What facts did I get wrong?
apparent majority of TD commenters *
Uh, it's a very small minority of commenters claiming that, and they're wrong. What we write about has remained perfectly consistent.
perhaps in line with the TD swear word increase
Similarly, there has been no swear word increase. So, nope.