Mike Masnick 's Techdirt Comments
Latest Comments (22492)
-
On the post: Social Media Isn’t A Shopping Mall
Mike Masnick ( profile ), 25 Feb, 2024 @ 09:36pmIt's kind of hilarious that you say this, and then IN THIS VERY SAME THREAD, claim that I am in favor of "censorship" when I was the one who gave Bluesky this entire concept. https://knightcolumbia.org/content/protocols-not-platforms-a-technological-approach-to-free-speech You're so full of shit. -
On the post: Social Media Isn’t A Shopping Mall
Mike Masnick ( profile ), 23 Feb, 2024 @ 07:41pmNo. What he's alluding to is his incredibly embarrassing, total misreading of 230 law and various cases about it, such as Barnes v. Yahoo, in which the court says that Yahoo gets 230 protections, because the law sought to treat it as a publisher for its activities that are like a publisher (i.e., moderation). Yahoo later lost the 230 protections in that case due to promissory estoppel, but Matt keeps claiming (incorrectly) that 230 says that you only get 230 protections if you don't act as a publisher. But, as Barnes laid out clearly, the opposite is true. You are given 230 protections to keep you from having liability for your publishing activities of third party content. The court lays this out clearly, noting that 230 applies to any publisher-like activities over 3rd party content, but protects the site from being held liable for those publisher-like activities. Matt has had this explained to him, but simply cannot read the fucking case and understand how he gets it totally backwards.
-
On the post: Prominent MAGA Supporter Is Worried New KOSA Won’t Suppress Enough LGBTQ Speech
Mike Masnick ( profile ), 21 Feb, 2024 @ 06:00pmShort answer: It still can enter the House. But starting house negotiations in March results in a bill that is unlikely to move everything forward before a new congress is seated in January. Once a new congress is seated, all bills that failed to be signed into law are dead, and it has to start all over.
This isn't wrong, but it's not wholly right either. While a House version has not yet been introduced, they already have the sponsors lined up. With bills that have a lot of support and no significant opposition, it can be introduced and quickly passed in the House, if need be. Do not think that the lack of a current House bill will hold this one up. By all accounts from what I'm hearing, there are House Reps happy to sponsor/co-sponsor the as passed version from the Senate. As such they wouldn't need to negotiate and reconcile bills. The real question is whether or not Mike Johnson supports the bill and will bring it to the floor (and then whether they can cobble together enough votes to pass it). So I WOULD NOT expect process limitations to be the issue here. It's more about the House (starting with Johnson) supporting the bill the Senate approves. That's why Kirk's statement is noteworthy. If he and his MAGA allies start to move away from supporting the bill, it could make the bill DOA. -
On the post: Has Wired Given Up On Fact Checking? Publishes Facts-Optional Screed Against Section 230 That Gets Almost Everything Wrong
Mike Masnick ( profile ), 18 Feb, 2024 @ 07:58pmSocial media is a public square because large generic speech platforms have set themselves up to be that – they invite millions, even billions, of people to join and speak about every imaginable topic.
You leave out, as you always do, that they invite people in, if they follow the rules of the site and if they do not, then they can be banned. And that is the only thing that these sites do. They set rules, and they take actions (which include many things, most of which do not limit their ability to use the platform, though some do) for those who violate the rules. As you yourself regularly note, they do this for decorum. Your problem is that you are an asshole. And you are upset that you regularly break the rules of sites, and they ban you for violating those rules. Yet you cannot accept that you broke the rules, and therefor you LIE and claim they are engaging in "viewpoint discrimination," rather than reality: they banned you for violating the rules, generally in being an asshole, harassing people, or (we know you) obsessing over their genitalia, which is none of your fucking business. Until you get it through your thick skull that the very thing you have REPEATEDLY said sites should do (moderate for decorum) is exactly what they do when they ban your sorry ass, the sooner you'll move towards being a productive member of society, rather than a problematic, perverted troll. It truly is that simple. -
On the post: Media Matters’ Very Strong Response To Elon Musk’s Very Dumb Lawsuit
Mike Masnick ( profile ), 13 Feb, 2024 @ 09:33pmBitch, you're filling up the comments on my site, because you don't know how to take the L, and where absolutely everyone thinks you're a stupid fucking idiot. I won a long time ago. Now I'm just enjoying the hilarity of the victory lap I get to keep taking every time you shit all over everything and show everyone here that you couldn't reason your way out of a paper bag. Keep going. It's amazing.
-
On the post: Media Matters’ Very Strong Response To Elon Musk’s Very Dumb Lawsuit
Mike Masnick ( profile ), 13 Feb, 2024 @ 06:06pmYour complaint has been registered in the appropriate file, and it will be given the exact amount of attention it deserves.
-
On the post: Media Matters’ Very Strong Response To Elon Musk’s Very Dumb Lawsuit
Mike Masnick ( profile ), 13 Feb, 2024 @ 03:48pmThe spam filter caught some of your comments which were later released. I do not believe that counts as high crimes and treason, though feel free to contact the DOJ and see what they think. Also, maybe cut back on the caffeine.
-
On the post: Congressional Witness Claims ChatGPT Won’t Write Poems Praising Jim Jordan; Ranking Member Submits A Bunch Of ChatGPT-Authored Poems Praising Jim Jordan
Mike Masnick ( profile ), 07 Feb, 2024 @ 08:47pmJust to underscore the point here: The argument was that we shouldn’t go down a path of regulation that will effectively create a market oligopoly. Illustrating inconsistency in existing AI guardrails is another good reason not to do that.
If that was the argument you guys were trying to make this was a very, very poor way to do it, and on a panel that was designed not to explore that particular issue. -
On the post: Congressional Witness Claims ChatGPT Won’t Write Poems Praising Jim Jordan; Ranking Member Submits A Bunch Of ChatGPT-Authored Poems Praising Jim Jordan
Mike Masnick ( profile ), 07 Feb, 2024 @ 08:40pmNo. I already had the post written. Today was a travel day though so I had all of today's posts scheduled already so I didn't have to deal with it while traveling. But I wrote up a post about the misleading reporting and claims by Jim Jordan earlier. I actually went into thinking that maybe, just maybe, he'd actually found a legitimate thing, finally. But then I went through the details, and nope. If only you could learn to think critically, Matthew, you could do that too. But instead, you lap up whatever shit sandwich Jim Jordan hands you, like the little sheep you are.
-
On the post: Congressional Witness Claims ChatGPT Won’t Write Poems Praising Jim Jordan; Ranking Member Submits A Bunch Of ChatGPT-Authored Poems Praising Jim Jordan
Mike Masnick ( profile ), 07 Feb, 2024 @ 12:19pmThe White House told them who to censor, they censored.
I'm sure it will surprise no one who follows Matt Bennett's comments around here that this is not, in fact, what was shown in the released documents. I'll have a post on this tomorrow. -
On the post: I Remain Confused By The Ruling On Elon Musk’s Compensation Package
Mike Masnick ( profile ), 05 Feb, 2024 @ 08:31pmIt's as if everything you write is incorrect.
Oh, you probably hate Musk less than you liked OldTwitter Censorship
I don't know why you continue to misrepresent my position on this, but at this point, you've been informed multiple times, so I can only chalk it up to you deliberately lying or you having such a significant brain injury that your short term memory is faulty. I did not support "old twitter censorship." Indeed, I regularly and repeatedly criticized it, and proposed the Bluesky protocols approach which would have taken Twitter out of the entire process of moderation. That's not something someone who "liked" how they moderated would do. So why do you lie?Which yes, was ruled by a court, and shown in court documents, to have been directed by federal gov agencies, in violation of the 1A.
Again, I have never denied that the 5th Circuit said that the White House violated the 1st Amendment. I simply asked you to support your false statement that the FBI and CDC told Twitter who to censor. I asked for proof for that specific statement, which the lawsuit did not show. You refused to show me any additional evidence, and we all concluded it was because it does not exist, except maybe in your fantasyland.And since you’re really upset Musk took your favorite dystopian viewpoint discrimination away
Again, I did not support the old moderation regime, and pushed them to get out of that business entirely (which they were doing, and Musk cut off that process).you lied about it for a little over a year now
The only one lying here is you Matthew. What we have not yet determined is if it's because you are simply too stupid to understand things, or if you're doing so deliberately. I have my suspicions. -
On the post: I Remain Confused By The Ruling On Elon Musk’s Compensation Package
Mike Masnick ( profile ), 05 Feb, 2024 @ 08:26pmDid you actually read the opinion?
I did. All 200 pages.It goes to great lengths to show that in fact yes, Musk was in effect self-dealing by being in effect in control of the board while claiming to shareholders there were acting independently. It even goes so far to point out that even Musk said something to the effect he was negotiating with himself.
Yes, but that statement, put in context does not suggest what you imply here. He was talking about he was discussing why he chose to propose a lower compensation than was currently being debated by the board. It wasn't him saying that the board was really representing his interests. He was noting that they hadn't yet pushed back on his initial proposal, and he was already proposing to lower it. That's what "negotiating against myself" meant, which was not an implication that the board wasn't truly independent. Indeed, while the ruling details personal and professional connections between Musk and the board, it also details many parts of the discussion where the compensation committee was, in fact, raising questions about the structure of the package. There was no indication of a rubber stamp.There’s a lot about the procedure and legal standards in the opinion, but the basic gist is you can’t lie or mislead shareholders. Besides the self-dealing at arriving at the compensation package, a number of the milestones were presented as ‘hard’ goals despite that internal projections showed it was something like 70% likely they’d be hit.
Again, I saw little evidence of misleading the shareholders. I kept waiting for it in the opinion, but... I just don't see it. And the 70% thing, again, you appear to have misread it. There were 12 milestones in the comp plan. The details show that Tesla believes that a few of them were "70% probable" within the first year. That... isn't that surprising? Given the nature of the compensation plan, and the desire to spread it out over time, you would naturally have some that have a lower bar, that are more achievable, and others that are harder to reach. As someone who has been on multiple boards... that is consistent with how I've seen things done in the past. You don't want all the milestones to be crazy hard to reach.But as others point out, it wasn’t the amount of money that was the problem, but the process.
Yes, I understand this claim, but I honestly don't see how the process was problematic. There was a negotiation. There was a plan. It was presented to the shareholders, and as far as I can tell, done so pretty clearly and fairly. If they had truly misrepresented the comp plan, I'd feel differently. I just don't see it. -
On the post: Court: No, You Can’t Sue Facebook Claiming It Takes Down More Pro-Palestinian Speech Than Pro-Israel Speech
Mike Masnick ( profile ), 04 Feb, 2024 @ 04:43pmNo, I found you the case, I don’t have to wade through the court docs to pull up the specific list of names.
Again, I know the case much better than you do. That's why I asked you for the specific evidence. I will accept your admission that you cannot prove your claim, and we can conclude that you now understand that it was false. It would be nice if you could get past your infatuation with pretending your right and admitting you were wrong.You said a very stupid thing, apparently posting while drunk, and now are trying to weasel out. I’m super not interested.
No, I said a correct thing in response to you lying. I asked you to back up your statement, and we have now, conclusively proven that you cannot. But you can't apologize because you're a pathetic little excuse for a human. -
On the post: Kids Don’t Think Congress Has Their Best Interests In Mind With Their Grandstanding ‘Protect The Children’ Hearing
Mike Masnick ( profile ), 04 Feb, 2024 @ 01:04amThat working document, somewhat famously, is not actually proof of what you claim. It is a collection of pretty much all the research found to date, not one of which proves a causal relationship, and many of which show no relationship at all (or a reverse relationship). Some suggest there might be a causal relationship, and some suggest no evidence of such a causal relationship. But none prove a causal relationship. While Haidt has published elsewhere his belief that social media is harming kids, it was based on a very flawed understanding of the data and statistics, as was pointed out by a statistician. https://reason.com/2023/03/29/the-statistically-flawed-evidence-that-social-media-is-causing-the-teen-mental-health-crisis/ As that statistician notes:
Haidt's compendium of research does point to one important finding: Because these studies have failed to produce a single strong effect, social media likely isn't a major cause of teen depression. A strong result might explain at least 10 percent or 20 percent of the variation in depression rates by difference in social media use, but the cited studies typically claim to explain 1 percent or 2 percent or less. These levels of correlations can always be found even among totally unrelated variables in observational social science studies. Moreover the studies do not find the same or similar correlations, their conclusions are all over the map.
So... no... your "evidence" does not show what you say it shows. -
On the post: Court: No, You Can’t Sue Facebook Claiming It Takes Down More Pro-Palestinian Speech Than Pro-Israel Speech
Mike Masnick ( profile ), 03 Feb, 2024 @ 07:59pmThe court papers list numerous examples, I really don’t feel the need to dig up the specific names.
See? That's the whole thing. If the court papers actually did list numerous examples, I would agree with you. I do no think the FBI or the CDC (or any government employee) should ever tell a private website who to censor. And if that had been shown in the Missouri case, I would support Missouri's side. The problem was that the papers don't show that. The closest they came was where the FBI would flag content and ask whether or not it violated the platform's rules, where they were explicit and direct that they were not asking for the content to be removed. They were simply alerting the site to see if the content violated the rules, the same as anyone could report content. As for the CDC, I saw no reports of the CDC ever telling anyone to censor either. What I did see was that at the height of the pandemic, Meta decided to occasionally ask the CDC if certain information was accurate or not, and based some of its moderation decisions based on that. We can disagree with that policy (I think it was stupid), but it was kind of understandable. In the midst of a historic pandemic, where little information is known, would you rather that your own low paid outsourced trust & safety employees judge whether or not "drinking bleach" is a safe idea, or do you ask literal experts on infectious diseases? But, what is not shown anywhere in the filings (and this is why I asked you to back up your claims, which I now see you cannot) is the FBI or the CDC telling websites who to censor. It simply does not happen. -
On the post: Court: No, You Can’t Sue Facebook Claiming It Takes Down More Pro-Palestinian Speech Than Pro-Israel Speech
Mike Masnick ( profile ), 03 Feb, 2024 @ 05:58pmThe court cases listed real examples, I feel no need to dig them up for you, that’s just stupid.
No, you do. Because the court case DID NOT list real examples. Surely you can give me names of who the CDC and FBI sent over, and what language they used in telling platforms to censor. How hard could that be if it was so clearly stated? -
On the post: Court: No, You Can’t Sue Facebook Claiming It Takes Down More Pro-Palestinian Speech Than Pro-Israel Speech
Mike Masnick ( profile ), 03 Feb, 2024 @ 03:16pmAgain, that quote does not say what you claim it does. I am asking you to show me an example of the FBI or the CDC telling platforms who to censor. That was your claim. Prove it.
-
On the post: Court: No, You Can’t Sue Facebook Claiming It Takes Down More Pro-Palestinian Speech Than Pro-Israel Speech
Mike Masnick ( profile ), 03 Feb, 2024 @ 03:15pmNo. Your quote provides no examples of any actual scenario in which the CDC or the FBI told the platforms who to censor. There is a claim that they pressured them, but I'm asking for example of where they named people to censor. That was your claim. Surely you can prove it.
-
On the post: Kids Don’t Think Congress Has Their Best Interests In Mind With Their Grandstanding ‘Protect The Children’ Hearing
Mike Masnick ( profile ), 02 Feb, 2024 @ 09:40pmI will not apologize for bringing facts to a discussion in which most of the actual narrative is driven by moral panics and FUD. I don't bring it up because it supports a narrative. I bring it up because it is some of the evidence that debunks the widely believed narrative. That's what journalists do. They bring facts. If you want to dispute this, you are free to present your evidence.
-
On the post: Court: No, You Can’t Sue Facebook Claiming It Takes Down More Pro-Palestinian Speech Than Pro-Israel Speech
Mike Masnick ( profile ), 02 Feb, 2024 @ 02:31pmLook, man, Masnick, like an idiot, said “what court has ruled this?” (despite writing, very poorly, on the exact subject) and I got to gleefully tell him which one, where and when. Your acceptance is not required.
Again, while the 5th Circuit ruled that the administration violated the law, the ruling does not say that the FBI or the CDC directed social media who to censor. That was your claim. I am asking you to back it up. If your answer is that you think the 5th Circuit said that, well, then I know you have no fucking clue what you're talking about and are either wholly ignorant or willing to lie. Which is it?
