If you think more facts is bad, then I'm afraid you are going to really hate the only option left. It involves telling more lies, just better and more manipulative lies for "our" side.
You misunderstand. It's not that facts are bad. They're incredibly important. But simply dumping a bunch of facts on people who have cultural reasons for feeling upset and angry and disenfranchised doesn't help. It's "let them eat facts." The point is that you need to actually go beyond just the facts to understand why so many people are angry -- why our government is so dysfunctional for them and people they know.
I'm legitimately curious: can you point to a single example of "the Hillary bias" because it didn't exist. I've been pretty consistent all along that she was a horrible candidate on basically every issue we care about.
I don't know why some people can't get it through their heads that just because Trump looks like a disaster, that doesn't mean I didn't also think Clinton was a disaster.
"if Techdirt is getting paid to post shit like this, they certainly don't need MY money..." *
Uh, we're not getting paid to post this. If we were, it would be announced as a sponsored post. As it is, I asked people at R Street if they were interested in writing on this topic for us, and they sent this over. I've done work with R Street in the past, and I find they do very good work on a variety of tech policy issues.
Naw... let's keep cheering for regulation. It's the American Way! Time to phone my representative!
You seem extraordinarily confused about Techdirt. We tend to view regulation as very much a last ditch effort, and only in special circumstances. We supported net neutrality rules after years of being against it, mainly because it was clear what had happened to the broadband market, which had gone from competitive to not competitive, and where you had key players openly discussing how they were going to abuse that monopoly power.
We've also supported regulation that curbs surveillance.
Either way being "for" or "against" regulation as a general principle is kind of dumb. It depends on the situation, but we've long taken the general position that regulation only makes sense in cases of market failure.
You're quick to state Comeys playing by his "own rules". When you say that you imply that he's violated some other rules, yet you never really mention what those rules are, or exactly how he violated them.
Click the links for "playing by his own rules" in the story above. There was a story earlier this summer about how the FBI isn't supposed to announce these things -- the DOJ is, so he broke that rule in doing the announcement. In the second one, there's a rule in the FBI that they not do anything that can be seen as influencing an election close to the election and he broke that rule too.
people - you've got to throw the bullshit flag on this. NOTHING happens in DC in A WEEK.
This wasn't politicians, this was FBI. And, yes, in an investigation, lots happens in a week.
1 day to get the subpoena.
1 day to get the disk/media/data to the bureaucrats responsible - MAYBE even to the analysts. (i.e. physically from NYC to DC, as it was a 'forensic' investigation, right?)
Why did anyone have to move anywhere? And if it was NY to DC that's an hour flight or a short Acela trip. Not long.
1 day to write the code to dedupe 650k emails.
It doesn't take that long. Such code already exists.
- all this ASSUMING the schmucks were working the weekend. another day to actually dedupe the data - and what they kill off 90% of the emails as BS or previously known?
Again, it doesn't take a day. You're adding up too much other stuff.
that still leaves 65,000 emails to proof read! in 3 or 4 days? GTFOH.
Why do you assume 65,000 emails. If all of the emails that were Hillary related were dupes, you're done. If there were just a few left over (way more likely than 65k), then it just takes a few days to look them over.
That's also assuming you already have enough people on-staff that are CLEARED TO THE LEVEL that the emails are thought to be at (i.e. S/TS/SCI, etc...)
Um. This is the FBI. They have plenty of those people.
The logistics behind this is incredibly stupid and DO NOT HAPPEN IN A WEEK!
so - 6 months to "clear" 30k emails, a week to "clear" 650k?
Nope. First of all, no one's sure of the 650k. Second, the real issue was there any Hillary emails that the FBI didn't already have. So the run a diff -- and if there aren't any new Hillary emails they're done. If there are, they just have to "clear" what's left, which could be a very small number. So, no, they didn't have to "clear" them in the same way, since it's likely that most of the Hillary emails were dupes.
Because I'm a glutton for punishment, I went and checked out this story about Soros. We've written about problems with e-voting machines for years, so if there was something there, perhaps I'd try to do a story on it.
Turns out it's not just wrong, it's laughably wrong and being passed around on conspiracy sites. If this is what you want Techdirt to cover, I've got news for you: we won't.
We don't cover bullshit like that.
Here's just one explanation of why it's bullshit, and you can check the details pretty clearly yourself if you'd like. There's nothing to it. The company is not owned by Soros (even slightly) AND the machines aren't being used in the presidential election.
So, yeah, sorry if this doesn't live up to what you wanted, but anonymous commenters whining about how we didn't cover their preferred widely debunked conspiracy theory isn't very compelling. And as evidence of "bias" I think it says a lot more about yours than ours. We prefer reporting on factual things, not fantasy land stuff.
I mean surely, as Tech journalists, you'd report on George Soros and his heavy ties with the company (Smartmatic) that provides voting stations in a majority of battle ground states followed by donating 25 million to the Clinton campaign?
We're an insanely small and overworked staff. We miss probably 20 stories A DAY that we'd like to cover, and really only get to cover between 5 and 10 stories per day.
Saying that because we missed some pet story of yours is not evidence of bias. It's evidence that we can't do everything.
And now I have a choice of responding to baseless conspiracy theory mongering or actually working on stories. I'm going back to actual stories.
It would be nice of Mike would tell us whether or not TD, or his other companies have taken money from the Clintons for services rendered. I've seen a couple of posts on TD that were echo'd by Mrs. bobble-head with alarming similarity a few days later.
Um, no, we've never taken any money from any political campaign whatsoever. I also don't think we've ever written anything positive about either candidate, so it's pretty ridiculous and totally clueless to suggest that we're somehow supporting her. You're wrong.
Techdirt lately is becoming more and more obvious in being agenda driven, which is expected as it is a self-proclaimed advocacy blog. Whether it is through posting nit-picky articles that are more inflammatory then valuable pieces to prove a stance on an issue, or repeatedly covering companies and organizations that Techdirt has some professional relationship to without properly disclosing it, Techdirt is becoming a Gawker Media in everything but a different form.
Yes, it is true that this is an advocacy blog that is a group of people promoting an agenda, but it needs to be made abundantly clear on what it is. Make it abundantly clear where the blog stands on issues
Um. That's what we do in EVERY SINGLE POST. We explain our point of view and our opinion on the issues.
that it cannot be trusted to tell the whole story on any issue.*
Why do you say that? We frequently look at claims we disagree with and explain why we disagree with them. I'd argue we tell a pretty complete story on lots of the issues we cover.
But I might be full of it when I say this. I think in the end, there needs to be another declaration of where Techdirt stands as a media organization.
Is anyone really that confused where we stand? We stand for supporting public-first innovation -- and with it basic civil liberties around free speech and protection against undue surveillance. We stand for due process.
I think that's pretty much the core of everything we stand for and discuss which hasn't changed in the 18 years we've been at it, despite your claims of a sudden change around here.
This is a perfect microcosm of everything that’s wrong with you and Techdirt.
Also a perfect microcosm of why we leave our comments open for people like you to present your viewpoint. I will note that the MPAA and many of your friends don't do this.
Your interpretation of the emails is interesting and certainly a possible explanation. We did, in fact, post the entire file for anyone to look at in the original post, so your claim that we hid it is inaccurate.
You make a reasonable argument that I should have made it clear that others in the Copyright Office were confused by the statement from Deutch's staff, so I'll add that to the post.
Again: what you see as dishonest may simply be a different interpretation. And, really, you still haven't answered the organization that pays your salary and whether or not it appears in those emails. Because, you know, that's kinda relevant as to where you're coming from, no?
Anyway, maybe instead of attacking me as dishonest and despicable and whatnot, you might consider that sometimes I just have a different opinion and perhaps a different interpretation of things.
I mean you'd probably argue the same thing regarding the NPRM, in which you falsely claim that it implicates copyright. This is because you misread it. I don't think you're DISHONEST and a LIAR and a awful human being, I just think you don't understand what the NPRM actually says.
That DIRECTLY contradicts the claim that Pallante was soliciting the opportunity to weigh in. You are a dishonest liar, Mike. Always have been. Always will be. It's frankly disgusting.
That's not how I read it at all (and one can simply interpret things differently without being a "dishonest liar"). I read it as Pallante telling Deutch to ask the CO to weigh in, but doing so without telling JC or KTC. It certainly appears that at least some effort was made by someone at the Copyright Office to get that official request. Otherwise, why would Deutch's staff say that?
The only other explanation I've heard in talking to people was that Fried himself told Deutch's staff that Pallante wanted that letter, and thus it was the MPAA's doing in the first place.
Neither is a good look.
Anyway, what is more "disgusting"? Having a different interpretation on things, or actively misrepresenting copyright law for the sake of helping your lobbyist friends?
Meanwhile, you never answered me if your organization shows up in those emails? I wonder why...