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.
With regard to Snowden. If he was doing this because he is a patriot, he should come home and defend his actions. During the Vietnam War, Daniel Ellsburg released classified material, and stayed to defend his actions. He stood trial for his crimes - which carried a sentence of 115 years in prison - the charges were ultimately dismissed.
Someone else already pointed out that the Espionage Act doesn't allow Snowden to defend his actions. You bring up Ellsberg -- you should know that he attempted a whistleblower defense and the DOJ objected, and the court agreed, refusing to allow Ellsberg to even mention his reasons.
The dismissal of his case was NOT because he was able to defend his reasons. It was because the government then illegally spied on him and broke into his psychiatrist's office to look at Ellsberg's medical records. The case was dismissed because of gross misconduct by the US government in bringing the case, not because of Ellsberg's defense
David, you need to screw your hand on straight. If I have never been convicted of a crime, it stands to reason that I cannot be pardoned for a crime I have not been convicted on. Requesting that I be pardoned for a crime I haven't been convicted of is ridiculous on its face.
I see you did not even read the article, huh? In it, I note that yes, you can be pardoned pre-conviction. The Supreme Court has said so. Lots of people are pointing to Ford's Nixon pardon as well. But in the article above I also note that Obama himself pardoned some people earlier this year who had not been convicted yet.
Right off the bat, before the story can even be read the OPINION of the author is expressed.
Yes. This is an opinion site. We state opinions.
What's the problem now?
Instead, Trump supporters (and Clinton non-supporters), will just dismiss this as another attack piece. They'll never read your content and their (legitimate) distrust of the mainstream media will grow.
Wait. It's my responsibility that some people live in such a closed bubble they refuse to read anything that doesn't already meet their preconceived notions? Fuck that. I'm not here to coddle people. I'm here to state my opinion.
It's inflammatory and therefore draws eyeballs to advertising.
That's not why we do it. We do it because that's what we've always done. We state opinions. Have been for almost 20 years.
I was under the impression that StackCommerce always got to push whatever they felt like. Is there actually a review process, or does all stuff just get approved automatically?
Stack runs the store and decides what goes in there, and they send us the daily deals, which we then post to the blog. Since we control the blog, we can obviously refuse to post the ones that show up here. And we've turned down a few of them in the past. Not very often. But sometimes. This one we should have realized was problematic, but didn't. So it got posted on the regular schedule.
Yup. You guys are all right. This deal never should have been offered on the site and we're talking to Stack about this now. We should have caught this earlier, but did not. But for now we're no longer promoting it on the site. Really sorry about this. We shouldn't have let it happen, but it did. We'll try to make sure this kind of thing doesn't happen again.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You need to get over it Mike...
Careful you are getting very close to having your posts moderated. The one thing Mike hates to be told is that what he thinks is absolutely right is really just an opinion.
Um. That's not true. We leave our comments open because these kinds of conversations are interesting and useful. We have spam filters. Sometimes they catch legit comments, but we clear them out as fast as we can.
Teamchaos, no matter how ridiculous he gets with his silly "red team/blue team" shit is not going to get "moderated."
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You need to get over it Mike...
I'll keep reading because I like your opinions, they make me think, even if you can't admit you have an opinion.
Huh? I have an opinion. I have loads of opinions. This is an opinion site. Everything we write about is stuff we have an opinion on.
My complaint is not with you claiming that I have an opinion, because of course I do -- and, in fact, in the very last comment I told you what my opinion was. My complaint is with you insistence that I am writing this post because I am "biased" against Trump because "my side" lost.
That implies that I my opinion here is irrational. It is not. Suggesting that both protestors and the media are doing something wrong here is an abomination from a President or President elect. Again, just this fucking week I called out Clinton for her ridiculous threats to sue stations airing Trump ads. Funny that no one on that post was screaming at me about how I was a Trump supporter.
Why can't you understand this simple thing? Criticizing Trump's actions have nothing to do with Clinton. I'm focused on the actions of Trump, just like I focused on the actions of Clinton, Obama, Bush and various other political figures. I don't have a team. I don't root for a team. When someone does something stupid, I call it out.
That's how my opinion works. The problem I have is when people like yourself suggest I need to "get over it" and ignore bad behavior because you like the fucking uniform color. That's not how it works.
I'm not a Democrat. I'm not a Republican. I don't have a side or a team. I focus on actions. If Trump did amazing things and protected the 1st & 4th Amendments and fixed copyright and patent law, I'd be the first to stand up and cheer. If Clinton came in and continued Obama's policies on all that I'd be the first shouting her down.
It's not about teams. And, yes, I have an opinion and I've never been shy about sharing it. But it's not "bias" against someone because of their team. It's an opinion about someone because of what they're doing.
And yet all the comments are from people whining about stuff totally unrelated to the story because they want to get political. No one gives a shit if you like the people in the video. That has nothing to do with this story. You look foolish commenting on that.
Stop it. Go off to some other site. There was nothing political about this post.
The nerve you hit is that you continue to accuse me of bullshit.
First - you don't have a side? Sure, of course you would have been equally happy who ever won the election.
I have made it clear that I thought both candidates would have been bad for the things we care about, but that Trump would be worse. Yes. That doesn't mean I supported Clinton. And it certainly doesn't mean I picked "a side" or am "biased." Both candidates were bad for things I care about. Trump was worse.
My posts here are not because I dislike Trump or I'm upset that he won and Clinton lost. My posts here are because Trump is doing something dangerous. If Clinton did something dangerous I'd be just as angry and I'm sure idiot Clinton supporters would be screaming at me "get over, your side lost" even tough that would be wrong as well.
Look I'm sick of bullshit "red team/blue team" idiocy. So, yeah, it hits a nerve when people jump in and assume that if you don't support the red team, you must support the blue team.
That's part of the fucking problem. People are focused on their teams and who "won" not what the fuck is happening.
I think tech dirt does a great job, or else I wouldn't even both to read it much less post. But it bothers me when you get too political. Thanks.
And that's just the thing. Getting political would mean picking sides based on the color of the uniform. We're not. We've stayed completely consistent, focusing on the actions and the policies. That's not political. It's making sure we protect what's important. Not "our side."