I just want to clarify what the court likely meant by “neutral” tools. By that, it means “neutral in regards to the nature of the content and its lawfulness or unlawfulness”. Basically, the effect of the recommendation is neutral with regards to the content’s lawful or unlawful nature. It’s an awkward phrasing inconsistent with how most would use the term, but as used, it is relevant to determining that Roomates doesn’t change things because YouTube did not materially develop the allegedly unlawful content at issue.
We have statues of the Spanish crown in America? If so, I’m all for having them removed, too.
The real criminals like the megaupload jokers got nice mansions and drunken parties and 2 billion customers after seeding their pirate boxes with “free upload” -style marketing.
That YouTube technically competes with Hollywood movies is ultimately irrelevant to whether or not the reviews are made for the purpose of “moving the content to a competitor”. At most, that would be a side effect of the review, not its purpose.
One thing that keeps bugging me years later: How would revealing documentation to people with the proper clearance to demonstrate that these specific plaintiffs are or are not being targeted and/or have or have not previously been targeted for drone strikes in any way compromise any existing operations? Those with proper clearance—presumably—would not be the sort to inform non-plaintiffs of their presence or absence on the list of targets or anyone of details of any operations beyond whether or not any of them were specifically intended to kill these two plaintiffs, and as far as not alerting these targets, they’re already on alert, so that cat’s been out of the bag for a long time.
You apparently can’t count. That’s four things, and only two of them actually void a contract necessarily.
You also confuse “ambiguous” with “vague” or “broad”. The terms are not ambiguous at all; they are simply very broad.
The Supreme Court says otherwise.
How did I “pull a Chozen”?
Like I said, I don’t care if you don’t believe me about that as it wasn’t intended as an argument to persuade you to begin with, so I don’t care enough to go back through over a year’s worth of comments to find what you ask for. I am not required to provide evidence for a claim I’m not trying to convince you to believe.
That’s not what a sockpuppet is.
The “fictional version of myself” is obviously referring to the strawman of TOG that the AC has been attacking. The one who created it was the AC, which they then shared with everyone before TOG referenced it. TOG is only saying that the version of himself being attacked by the AC is not real—aka “fictional”—and has no resemblance to the real version of him that actually exists. I don’t understand how you could interpret that in any other way.
The burden of proof is on the one making the claim. If anyone needs to present links, it would be you here. All I have to do is demonstrate that your claims are not supported by the evidence you’ve provided and/or that your arguments are not sound. This can be done with links, but it’s not necessary if I reference only things that we both agree are true and demonstrate why they don’t support your claim, or if you fail to make a prima facie case in the first place.
The enraged response shows anger.
What enraged response? Yes, an enraged response would show anger, but you have yet to demonstrate that TOG made an enraged response in the first place, so that tautology has no relevance here. You have the burden of proof here, so unless you can demonstrate clearly and convincingly that any of his responses were almost certainly (or definitively) enraged, I have no reason to conclude that he made an enraged response in the first place.
The sarcasm is Mike Masnick, the article author, saying that content moderation doesn’t matter.
That’s not what was happening. Mike was saying that the second half of the title was the worst argument for such a position. That’s not sarcasm; that’s stating an argument made by others in a critical manner. Do you not understand what sarcasm actually is?
TOG responded to the second half of the title, not the entire thing, […]
No, he addressed the argument mentioned in the title; he did not respond to the title. If someone mentions something Donald Trump said in a critical manner, and I ridicule what Trump said, I am not responding to that person’s statement but addressing Trump’s claim that the person mentioned.
Nothing TOG said even suggests that he was attributing the argument to anyone specifically, let alone conclusively demonstrate that he was attributing the argument to the author in particular. I genuinely don’t understand your confusion on this as this happens a lot on this site.
Also, why would you think that he must have missed the first half of the title entirely? Yes, that would have had to have been the case for you to be right, but nothing about what he said demonstrates that you’re right on either front, so this is in no way persuasive.
[…] and his post hoc “explanations” otherwise prove him to be a liar.
Given that his subsequent statements have been entirely consistent with my initial impressions of what he said and meant, and that I have had no reason to revise my initial impressions thus far, I fail to see how that would be the case. If anything, it suggests that he is not lying.
I mean, it’s pretty obvious.
How is he a bully?
Show me where TOG addressed the author as having made the argument rather than as having presented it as something someone else said. Nowhere do I see evidence that he was addressing the author in the first place, so I don’t see why you think he was.
Just because TOG could have been more explicit about who he was talking to, it doesn’t make you any less wrong.
Also sarcasm, both the term and in terms of detecting it.
Who’s bullying anyone?
I’m sorry I have autism…
I’m sorry you see your brain as a disease. Your parents should have done better than to raise you to see yourself as “broken” and “not good enough”.
I’m sorry that you’re apparently worse at detecting sarcasm than I am.
I am not actually sorry that I have autism. I don’t see autism as a disease per se, and I don’t see myself as “broken” or “not good enough” because of my autism. My parents and I see it as a difference between me and most people. It has its downsides, but it also has a number of benefits, and I choose to focus more on the latter. I am still aware of the downsides, however, though I am better than many autistic people at overcoming some of them. For example, for an autistic person, I am well above average at detecting (and using) sarcasm. That doesn’t mean I’m as good as the average non-autistic person at doing so, however.
TOG has also explicitly claimed that he was not angry…
Exactly. It was a claim, not a statement.
A claim often comes in the form of a statement, such as here. The two are not mutually exclusive.
More to the point, so what? This is a claim about TOG’s mental/emotional state, so TOG’s claims about that carry a heavy presumption of truthfulness which require significant evidence to the contrary in order to refute. You have offered nothing more than a single response made by TOG that—as far as I can tell—doesn’t appear angry at all on its face or based on prior context. That simply isn’t enough to satisfy your burden of proof. In the absence of any actual evidence that actually supports your contention, I have little choice but to assume that TOG knows what TOG was feeling best and that he is being truthful about it:
See, the thing is that you’re making the claim here, so you have the burden of proof.
What exactly is your relationship with TOG?
To my knowledge (since I know nothing about TOG’s RL identity), merely a fellow commenter, reader, and account holder on Techdirt. Nothing more. I don’t know anything about him outside of what he has said on this site while logged in to his account, and I have no real relationship with him.
Seriously, because I want to know the reason for your sycophancy.
I don’t have any sycophancy, but my reason for entering this discussion in this case is largely twofold:
What you’re saying about TOG’s comments on this article appear obviously wrong, so I’m pointing that out.
I want to understand why you think what you do, because I don’t understand where your claims even come from.
That’s it. No real motives beyond curiosity and general principles of pointing out where people are wrong. I’ve done this for many others on this site, including Mike, Steven Stone, Toom1275, and others, even with some I disagree with (like Chozen) on occasion. That’s just what I do.
How could you come to that conclusion?
I don’t think making that change actually helps given that the problematic part is the reference to copyright, which is completely unrelated to what Rocky was talking about.
It was bullying someone by calling them a bigot for having a view about copyright that’s different from your own extreme minimalist view, […]
Which wasn’t at all what was being discussed. The issue was about bigotry and transgender people, and in the original discussion, it was about content moderation by social media platforms as it relates to perceived bias against conservatives by those platforms. Nothing at all to do with copyright. In short, the minority view here was transphobia, not differing from copyright minimalism.
[…] and since the AC’s comment has been hidden by you and your gang, your fighting words remain plain for everyone to see.
I don’t see how the latter follows from the former, or how either help your case at all.
I mean, it kinda is. A typo is a difference between what was meant and what was typed, which is usually in the form of a spelling or punctuation mistake or the result of autocorrect. I have no idea what could possibly have been meant instead of “copyright” where it both could have reasonably been what Rocky was talking about and could have reasonably been a typo.