ladyattis’s Techdirt Profile


About ladyattis

ladyattis’s Comments comment rss

  • Aug 13th, 2019 @ 10:34am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: False Argument

    Like I'm willing to be lenient with evangelicals as not all of them are Family Research Council dirtbags, but anyone who's a race realist or bigot of another stripe I'm just not gonna invite them to the cookout, sorry. And note, that I don't talk party affiliation because it's not a straight line. There's plenty of center right Democrats as there are (even if some are afraid in this time of resurgent fascism) center right Republicans. It's just gonna take time until this all settles out and we'll see what happens from there. But I do feel for conservatives even though I'm a leftist. There's a similar problem on the left with the "red-brown alliance" of Nazbols (national bolsheviks), so this isn't just a right or left problem but a universal one.

  • Aug 13th, 2019 @ 8:31am

    Re: Re: False Argument

    Fascist says what?

  • Aug 13th, 2019 @ 8:00am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Socialist: believes in the need for a welfare state and government intervention in All The Things. Egalitarian and collectivist. Often atheist, but this philosophy does appeal to some religious groups. Racism tends to be protectionist.

    I'm going to take issue with your definition of socialist for a couple reasons. First, socialism doesn't necessarily entail a welfare state. In fact, welfare states were and are criticized by socialists as they're half-measures that are employed to prevent any attempt to socialize or otherwise convert capital to common ownership. Second, collectivism isn't also baked into socialism either. For anarcho-communism/collectivism sure. But more often it's an individualist ideology. And I speak as a syndicalist with mutualist leanings on this.

    But otherwise, I agree that racism isn't inherent to most strains of modern conservatism which is why I tend to argue that what is occurring is the resurgence of fascism in the manner that Umberto Eco would write about (Look up Ur-Fascism, it's pretty easy to get a summary of it online that gives you the telltale signs of fascism). So many of these folks that claim to be conservative only say so to get sympathy from conservatives as much as some will claim to be liberals as well for the same effect. But in the end they're fascists and reactionaries by definition.

  • Aug 9th, 2019 @ 8:31am

    Re: Re:

    At this point, the only bias is the money grubbing kind with all the automated banning that occurs as a result of how tech companies think (if it can be automated then it shall be automated). Which isn't good or bad, just lazy. Like how YouTube still leans on ContentID and other automated flagging systems despite their lackluster results. But it's nothing like what conservatives are claiming nor is it against the law as it is.

  • Aug 9th, 2019 @ 7:23am

    Re: So, you too want to reverse the "lunch counter principle":

    And to be done by corporations authorized by mere statute! Which is literally FASCISM.

    No, it's not the definition of fascism. You really need to read some Umberto Eco before coming out with this bs line again. Look up Ur-Fascism (sometimes titled Eternal Fascism) then get back to us.

  • Aug 9th, 2019 @ 7:22am


    None of this surprises me in the least. The conservative movement is out of gas and so they're trying to force whole generations of users to consume their content lest they be left in the trash bin of history. They continue to insist that if people are just exposed to their claptrap that magically everyone will be anti-abortion, anti-lgbt, and evangelical Christians.

  • Aug 2nd, 2019 @ 2:54pm

    It always comes down to control.

    As you said, conservatives are pulling a fast one. But what's more troubling is that I think many in the tech industry know it. What conservatives really hate is that much of SV isn't so much liberal but that it's libertarian. And libertarians generally don't want to be told what to do or be told who they can do what with whom if it's consensual/contracted. So to deal with such folks conservatives love to use threats of force such as what Hawley and Cruz are employing. Not only does it give them something to talk about for reelection, it gives them leverage over the tech industry. Even if they can't get their way entirely and have a captive audience on Twitter or YouTube, they sure can make it hard for those companies to shutdown actual fascists and reactionaries who are their ideological (and perhaps physical) foot soldiers.

    They know that the "alt-right" has been a shot in the arm to their ideology in terms of votes. If that segment of political discourse which often is explicitly violent or advocates for it in various forms (mass murder or genocide) was shutdown then modern conservatism would go with it. It's not to say that conservatism wouldn't evolve it just wouldn't be conservative by our current views (imagine a Republican who does support LGBT rights and low taxes and the like). But as long as the elites of the conservative movement rely on the Internet and it's most acrid movements then expect more of these interventionist attitude to percolate throughout the media as a whole.

  • Aug 2nd, 2019 @ 2:38pm

    Re: Re: It's Adorable

    It all comes down to the fact that conservatives want to tap into the alt-right and reactionary movements for their "young Republicans" of the future. If you ban those two groups which notoriously love to pile-on minorities (LGBT, PoC, etc) then they lose any chance to reach out to them. Folks like Ted Cruz are just too cowardly to admit as much. They know if everyone was told the truth that just about everyone would tell them to buy their own hosting and build their own site and work on SEO to get it on page 1 search results. Yet they keep playing the game because stating the obvious is evil some how.

  • Aug 2nd, 2019 @ 2:34pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Correction: flat-earthers.

  • Aug 2nd, 2019 @ 2:33pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    btr1701, YouTube mods have been demonetizing everyone for just about anything. It has little to do with any political slant. LGBT videos which have no explicit or sexual content have been demonetized, videos recapping comicbook storylines have been demonetized, and so forth. There's literally no pattern to the YouTube nonsense beyond YouTube not having sufficient number of actual moderators handling the process. Most of it is due to mass reporting by bots to tank a channel's revenue or get it shut down altogether. For example, CodysLab got hit with two strikes despite both videos not violating ToS and it was due to flateathers getting mad at him. So, where's the actual bias? I'm all ears.

  • Aug 1st, 2019 @ 9:27am


    I have to agree on the time shift thing. It's what irks me about CBS All Access and Star Trek Discovery. I don't understand why they won't release all at once and let users watch at their leisure? I don't want to wait until it's released on a specified time. It's not proper television in the older sense of air TV. So why make us wait?

  • Jul 31st, 2019 @ 7:04am

    Re: Re: Re: Oh, surprise. Leftist NYT sets up to censor conserva

    Oh I'm not doubting how hard it is to get on page 1 but my point still stands that access to an audience which is unwilling to listen isn't something the law can provide. Conservatives just haven't accepted that the younger generations (apparently, I'm part of that even though I just turned 39, lol) aren't buying what they're selling. They just seem to think if they can force eyeballs of a hostile audience to read their arguments they'll magically convert them over to their side. It's like the Clockwork Orange conversion scene but 100x worse imo.

  • Jul 30th, 2019 @ 6:41am

    Re: Re: What's the end game?

    But the Fairness Doctrine was applicable because the radio spectrum is finite so having TV and radio requirements to have 'balanced' views isn't exactly novel. By the way, the Fairness Doctrine never legally applied to print publishers as there's no finite quality to print as there is to radio as you always use a vanity printer and hire a distributor to handle the release of your wouldbe NYT killer. Just don't expect the results to be all that spectacular. At the end of the day, websites are more like newspapers than they are TV/radio stations as there's no current way to exhaust the number of them you can create (especially once IPv6 is finally adopted universally). No one is stopping you from self-hosting and self-publishing. So why are you demanding others to handle all of that for the price of free?

  • Jul 30th, 2019 @ 6:37am

    Re: Oh, surprise. Leftist NYT sets up to censor conservatives.

    Why are you insistent on having access to a random website's comment section? Like there's no one stopping you from rolling your own Wordpress blog and doing some SEO to get page 1 results on Google. Sure it's work, but it's infinitely easier than trying to change the laws to get free access and audience in another site's forum. Just roll your own blog and stop being a brat.

  • Jul 29th, 2019 @ 9:39am

    What's the end game?

    I'm still puzzled by these pushes to gut 230 or otherwise add further liability onto website owners. Is there someone angling to become a third party that "verifies" posts and other content? I'm just trying to see if this a money induced thing or something more fundamental such as just blanket ignorance as to how 230 works.

  • Jul 18th, 2019 @ 6:27am

    Missing the point...

    This isn't about the legal aspects of crowdsourcing that has folks up in arms but the fact that businesses regularly assume some kind of entitlement to extract more labor from customers and fans as part of their development process of games. For example, years ago game developers would HIRE testers to run through their games and even required to them have some skill in following down the rabbit hole of certain use cases. Today? They rarely depend on them and even make users pay for the "privilege" to play the game in early access (basically alpha/beta stage of the code). This isn't illegal but it sure is cynical and greedy on the part of developers. Similarly, crowdsourcing music that will appear in a game is really lazy and greedy when they could you know hire composers to get the work done. Jesper Kyd, Jeremy Soule, and company are still around so it's not like there's a lack of composers in the gaming industry. So you can say that it's bad to mock the cynical cash grab and greed of a company all you want but don't complain when people don't contribute to it or mock it.

  • Aug 9th, 2018 @ 9:25am


    Disregard my last post I'm terrible at reading where another post below mine got flagged. Apologies.

  • Aug 9th, 2018 @ 9:24am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Oh nevermind, I thought you were mentioning mine, apologies as I'm bad at reading.

  • Aug 9th, 2018 @ 8:45am


    At what part did my post mention violence? All I mentioned was that I got nicked by a shadow ban just like K-pop fans on Twitter for variously random reasons (retweeting too fast/often or other assorted one off things). There's no violence in my post. This is why right wing trolls like you get ignored because you can't address the points of this article and your critics (me included).

  • Aug 9th, 2018 @ 8:42am

    Re: Re:

    My post is hateful? How is it hateful to point out that shadow banning has affected non-political Twitter users for months before folks like Scott Adams crowed above it? How is it hateful that I point out that I was personally hit with a shadow ban for retweeting too often and too fast which triggered their automated systems? How is it hateful to point out that it is not driven by any particular set of keywords but rather general behavior that seems bot-like or spamming which is a real problem on social media which firms from Twitter to Google's ad division have been dealing with since the days of click farms?

    How is any part of my post hateful? Where did I say I hate anyone for getting nicked by a broken automated process? It's posts like those of PaulT that get right wingers and reactionaries mocked and ignored. They literally call any criticism of their flawed arguments as "hate" when it's clear no emotive intention is part of my thesis. If anything it validates that automation of content moderation and curation isn't viable (or even scalable). So trying to do the whole 'wokewashing' by disclaiming my very plain statements as hate demonstrates dishonesty on your part, PaulT.

More comments from ladyattis >>