bhull242 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (6618) comment rss

  • On the post: Trump’s Anti-Deep State FBI Pick Kash Patel Got Swept Up By… Trump’s Deep State

    bhull242 ( profile ), 18 Dec, 2024 @ 11:38am

    You are aware that Trump won’t actually get rid of corruption, right? What he wants is for the corruption to benefit himself.

  • On the post: Trump’s Anti-Deep State FBI Pick Kash Patel Got Swept Up By… Trump’s Deep State

    bhull242 ( profile ), 18 Dec, 2024 @ 11:37am

    Bluesky is filled with pedos and totally irrelevant.
    ExTwitter isn’t really much better in that regard.

  • On the post: Trump’s Anti-Deep State FBI Pick Kash Patel Got Swept Up By… Trump’s Deep State

    bhull242 ( profile ), 18 Dec, 2024 @ 11:34am

    To be clear, an explanation is not always, nor is it always intended to be, an excuse, or even a mitigating factor to consider. It’s just about trying to understand how this happened, not trying to say that they didn’t vote for fascism.

  • On the post: FTC’s Lina Khan Takes Aim At Sneaky Fees On Her Way Out The Door

    bhull242 ( profile ), 18 Dec, 2024 @ 11:23am

    In fact, this so-called “critique” feels like little more than a cheap shot at Lina Khan’s efforts and the broader work being done to tackle consumer exploitation.
    Uh, no. How did you come to that conclusion? It reads to me like it is complimenting her efforts while also pointing out that it isn’t that much and likely will be repealed in a month or so.
    First of all, the opening paragraph frames the problem of hidden fees in the U.S. as if this was some kind of underdog battle against a cabal of corporate evil-doers […]
    Notably, nothing in the rest of this paragraph contradicts this framing at all. It looks to me like you’re just taking shots at them for no reason.
    The reality is far more nuanced than just some “passive” regulators standing idly by.
    No one said it was just regulators standing by.
    The blame also lies with the culture of corporate greed that has deeply permeated industries, where the customer is treated as an afterthought.
    Uh, yeah. Obviously.
    Let’s also talk about the lazy framing of the issue at hand. The article scoffs at the transparency rule changes made by Lina Khan’s FTC, but rather than celebrate the progress that’s being made, the writer seems to revel in condemning the efforts as too small, too inadequate.
    It seems rather hypocritical to accuse them for “lazy framing” while simultaneously lazily framing the article yourself.
    Sure, the author brings up a valid point that transparency alone won’t stop companies from ripping consumers off, but why not acknowledge that these transparency rules are at least a step forward?
    They did. It’s like you only bothered to read the more critical parts of the article while ignoring the complimentary parts.
    The FTC is a regulatory agency, not some omnipotent consumer protection force with the power to completely overhaul every problem in one fell swoop.
    Again, no one says otherwise.
    The writer criticizes the FTC’s rules for only applying to the lodging and live-event industries, as though the agency should have tackled every single fee problem in existence with the stroke of a pen.
    All of them? No. However, it is still reasonable to point out or even criticize the significant limitations.
    And let’s not forget the passive-aggressive jab at Andrew Ferguson, the incoming FTC chair under a potential second Trump administration. Yes, it’s a politically charged point, but the piece takes it to an absurd level by forecasting doom and gloom for all consumer protections, even though there is no way to predict exactly how things will unfold.
    Dude, you read way too much into way too little. At the same time, given what Ferguson has done in the past and what he says he will do in the future, they aren’t exactly absurd predictions to make.
    It’s entirely speculative, biased, and more focused on indulging in partisan sniping than on offering an honest assessment of what could actually happen.
    First, you’re asserting bias and partisanship without presenting any evidence or arguments to support either contention. Second, remember that the assessment in question boils down to the fact that Andrew Ferguson—who voted against this decision—is unlikely to enforce this regulation. I fail to see how that is even remotely speculative and not “an honest assessment of what could actually happen.”
    Now, let’s get into the biggest flaw of this article: the hypocrisy.
    Notably, even if I accept literally every other word in your comment as true (aside from this one sentence), including stuff that comes after this sentence, none of it would support an accusation of any hypocrisy in this article on the part of the article. None of it suggests any sort of double standard or “do as I say, not as I do” attitude. I don’t think you know what “hypocrisy” actually means, or if you do, you are terrible at arguing.
    The writer lambasts the system for allowing these predatory behaviors to persist, yet fails to fully address one of the root causes of this issue—market consolidation. Companies become more emboldened in their exploitation when there’s a lack of competition, and the article briefly touches on this but doesn’t go into depth. If the writer truly wants to solve the problem of sneaky fees, why not demand a deeper examination of the monopoly power that enables these companies to charge whatever they want?
    Dude, there are loads of articles saying all of those things on this site. Not every single article on this site about the system needs to go into great detail about the problems of market consolidation. This particular article is focused on one aspect to make it easier to read and not overly long. Other articles go into more detail.
    Finally, the article’s conclusion feels like a complete cop-out. It ends with a dire, overblown prediction about a second Trump administration gutting consumer protections, without offering any concrete analysis or solution.
    Given that the incoming administration has promised to gut consumer protections, that’s hardly an “overblown” prediction. As for concrete analyses or solutions, again, there are other articles that go into more detail about that sort of thing. Though, really, why you’d expect a blog to be offering concrete solutions is beyond me. Actually, much of your criticism seems to be that you wanted this article to do little more than be a repeat of what they’ve already said multiple times in great detail in other articles. Why should they have to restate all of that stuff in this article? Different articles have different focuses. This one is primarily about specific efforts by a specific member of the FTC. There is no reason for it to go into detail about other topics.

  • On the post: FTC’s Lina Khan Takes Aim At Sneaky Fees On Her Way Out The Door

    bhull242 ( profile ), 18 Dec, 2024 @ 10:50am

    Oh, really? You’re going to lump “free speech” and “fees” together as if they’re somehow mutually exclusive?
    I mean, the guy says he’s going to shut down a bunch of investigations and gut regulations as FTC chair. It’s hardly speculation. Also, while the OP never said that “free speech” and “fees” are mutually exclusive, nor were they lumping them in together, it’s worth noting that calling two things mutually exclusive is the precise opposite of “lumping [them] together”.
    Let’s not pretend like fighting for “free speech” doesn’t have its place in the grand scheme of things.
    Fighting for actual free speech is important and has its place. Fighting for “freeze peach” isn’t and doesn’t. Plus, except when companies are using the government to suppress speech (like in non-disparagement clauses meant to prevent negative reviews), it’s not really the FTC’s job to protect free speech, so while fighting for free speech has its place in the grand scheme of things, that place isn’t really the FTC.
    The idea that he’ll focus on defending fees more than speech is a massive oversimplification.
    The OP never said he would do that. The point is that he’s going to focus on defending what he calls “free speech” over protecting consumers from fees. And since his version of “free speech” is so backwards, this means that the effect of his policies will result in a better defense of fees than actual free speech. You’re conflating his focus with the results.
    You’re assuming his stance without even considering the nuances of his actions.
    You haven’t exactly articulated any nuances in his actions to consider, nor has he demonstrated any nuance. Also, you completely ignored the nuances in the OP’s comment, so you’re kinda being hypocritical here.
    Plus , this whole “silencing minorities and poor people” claim is incredibly loaded and speculative.
    Not really. The policies he’s supporting would have the effect of silencing minorities and poor people based on how things have worked in the past with similar policies. It’s also par for the course for conservatives. That’s hardly speculative. Is it loaded language? Maybe, but I think that implies more subtlety on the OP’s part than is actually present; I wouldn’t call a direct accusation “loaded”.
    It’s not like he’s single-handedly suppressing voices—[…]
    No one said he’d be doing anything “single-handedly”.
    […] there’s a lot more going on in any regulatory decision.
    Not always, and sometimes the other stuff isn’t all that important or only makes things worse.
    Maybe try focusing on the specific policies rather than throwing around vague, inflammatory accusations.
    I’m sorry that a brief online comment isn’t going into as much detail as you’d prefer.

  • On the post: FTC’s Lina Khan Takes Aim At Sneaky Fees On Her Way Out The Door

    bhull242 ( profile ), 18 Dec, 2024 @ 10:25am

    Congratulations. You’ve made not just a strawman but a straw army. No one called Lisa Khan “a hero”. No one said her approach is the right one. No one said the system isn’t broken or stagnant. No one said her tenure would have solved all the issues in a few months. (On the contrary, the original comment implies that she might have needed a few more years to effect any real changes.) No one said that her vision was guaranteed to be better than what we’ve had. What was being appreciated was that she was making an honest attempt to at least try to make things at least marginally better, and it’s possible things could be better than they are now if she was given a few more years. Even at a generous reading, it doesn’t even come close to praising her as a hero.

  • On the post: NBC News Does Entire Piece Trying To Link CEO Shooting To ‘Violent Video Game’

    bhull242 ( profile ), 18 Dec, 2024 @ 10:15am

    Here’s a clip, if anyone’s interested. (Apologies for the quality; I didn’t make the video.)

  • On the post: NBC News Does Entire Piece Trying To Link CEO Shooting To ‘Violent Video Game’

    bhull242 ( profile ), 18 Dec, 2024 @ 10:14am

    Man, they’re desperate!

    And now the media is trying to connect the Pokémon Breloom to this mess because the shooter apparently had pictures of it on his phone. They’re even claiming its Pokédex number is a reference to a Bible verse! What kinda world is this!?

  • On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt

    bhull242 ( profile ), 16 Dec, 2024 @ 07:25am

    I fail to see any relevance even if I was to grant there was any truth to what you said.

  • On the post: Attacker Has Techdirt Reclassified As Phishing Site, Proving Masnick’s Impossibility Law Once Again

    bhull242 ( profile ), 16 Dec, 2024 @ 07:20am

    That seems rude.

  • On the post: NBC News Does Entire Piece Trying To Link CEO Shooting To ‘Violent Video Game’

    bhull242 ( profile ), 11 Dec, 2024 @ 04:15pm

    So… kill someone by refusing to aid them when they’re in distress, and some people might grumble but nobody’s going to get truly upset, even if the refusal was pretty blatant. But commit an act that has direct consequences of someone dying (even if it’s assisted medical death, abortion, defense of family or the electric chair), and society will come down on you eventually.
    It’s kinda like how, in the original trolley problem, most people chose to not pull the lever.

  • On the post: NBC News Does Entire Piece Trying To Link CEO Shooting To ‘Violent Video Game’

    bhull242 ( profile ), 11 Dec, 2024 @ 04:12pm

    Among Us isn’t a “children’s game” (just because it was rated E10+, which means for “everyone 10 and up”, doesn’t mean it’s played mostly by kids)…
    That’s not what that means, anyways. They just meant that it’s appropriate for kids, not that it’s primarily for kids.

  • On the post: Copyright Troll Richard Liebowitz Finally Disbarred

    bhull242 ( profile ), 09 Dec, 2024 @ 08:22pm

    “Self-hating”? Dude, you are aware that you can criticize a specific Jewish person without being a bigot, right? This has nothing to do with Liebowitz being a Jew (possibly; given that Jewishness is passed down through the mother, while surnames are passed down through the father, it is entirely plausible he isn’t a Jew despite the last name) and everything to do with him being a copyright troll, an incompetent lawyer, and a dishonest person.

  • On the post: The 1800s Had ‘Brainrot’ Too!

    bhull242 ( profile ), 09 Dec, 2024 @ 03:13pm

    I fail to see your point. Kids can be melodramatic, so the suicidal threats over it doesn’t actually prove anything.

  • On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt

    bhull242 ( profile ), 08 Dec, 2024 @ 03:21pm

    I know many who would disagree with that assessment. MLK doesn’t dictate others’ beliefs.

  • On the post: Texas Legislators Think Drones Armed With Tasers And Pepper Spray Will Stop School Shootings

    bhull242 ( profile ), 03 Dec, 2024 @ 01:12pm

    I just need to point out how crazy this one bit is

    not when the inbound president has said stuff that might make us genuinely concerned about our Third Amendment rights.
    A reminder of what the 3rd Amendment is:
    No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
    In other words, nobody can force a homeowner to keep any soldier(s) in their home during peacetime at all, and only according to the law during wartime. For context, the Third Amendment is one of the least cited sections of the Constitution, and it has never been the primary basis for any Supreme Court decision. It has almost never come up. The idea that we should be worried about it is almost unprecedented.

  • On the post: We Need To Fight For Free Speech More Than Ever

    bhull242 ( profile ), 12 Nov, 2024 @ 01:09pm

    Invoke the 25th, declare Biden incompetent and start doing what she wants to do as president, as president.
    The VP doesn’t have that option unilaterally. Either Biden or a majority of his cabinet would have to agree.
    Border crossings dropped by half after trump won.
    [citation needed]
    NY cancelled the credit cards of illegals a couple days after he won.
    A state cannot unilaterally cancel credit cards. States do not issue credit cards.
    By the way, how many of you here are housing these displaced people? I bet you have no room in your house to house anyone but you want everyone else to take care of them.
    No, just the government, temporarily, then they buy their own homes like everyone else.

  • On the post: We Need To Fight For Free Speech More Than Ever

    bhull242 ( profile ), 12 Nov, 2024 @ 01:00pm

    You can’t do both.

  • On the post: We Need To Fight For Free Speech More Than Ever

    bhull242 ( profile ), 12 Nov, 2024 @ 12:54pm

    Then why not read it at the meeting if that is what it means.
    Because that might give the game away?
    Keep in mind, intellectually challenged commenter, it isn’t the parents calling it too obscene to read aloud.
    In many cases, it is, but even accepting your assertion, that doesn’t actually dispute what they said. On the contrary, that would be entirely in keeping with their claim.

  • On the post: We Need To Fight For Free Speech More Than Ever

    bhull242 ( profile ), 12 Nov, 2024 @ 12:51pm

    Just because they claim it’s too obscene doesn’t mean it is. Moreover, that some are obscene doesn’t mean all or even most are obscene. Finally, what’s too obscene for a first-grader isn’t necessarily too obscene for a high-schooler.

Next >>