btr1701’s Techdirt Profile


About btr1701

btr1701’s Comments comment rss

  • Sep 13th, 2018 @ 11:35pm


    > Secret groups will continue to just remain secret and avoid this whole law.

    Or, you know, be full of people who are not in the UK and don't care what UK laws say or require.

  • Aug 31st, 2018 @ 11:57am

    Re: Re: Re:

    > > If the guy packing my box has to wear an adult diaper
    > > to make that happen, so be it!

    > Don't care what happens to others so long as you get
    > what you want, eh?

    Oh, look! Another humorless fuck that can't recognize a joke when someone slaps him across the face with one.

    > Hell, I bet you'd sell your own grandmother.

    None left alive to sell, so much like the number of licks it takes to get to the Tootsie Roll center of a Tootsie Pop, the world may never know...

  • Aug 30th, 2018 @ 11:21am


    All of that may be true, but last week I ordered a book from Amazon at about 8:00 in the morning and it was on my doorstep by 3:30 in the afternoon that same day, so they're doing something right.

    If the guy packing my box has to wear an adult diaper to make that happen, so be it!

  • Aug 29th, 2018 @ 10:36am

    Re: Code words and ciphers pre-consumer electronics

    It would be interesting if some criminals had come up with their own cipher-- something like the Navajo language that confounded cryptologists-- and what a court's reaction to reams of paper written in that language would be if found during a search warrant.

  • Aug 28th, 2018 @ 11:34am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    > If it is, it's the mildest, least obstructive possible form, and it's generated by the people reading these comments requesting it, not some shady censor.

    We're not talking about the same things. You're apparently under the impression that it's the TechDirt comments that are the subject of Masnick's 'whining' comment and my label of censorship.

    We're not talking about that. We're talking about the people on Twitter and Facebook and YouTube who have found themselves muzzled for not being 'progressive' enough. Masnick says they're whiners for complaining about it. I disagree.

    > If someone genuinely asks "hey, why was that censored, I
    > didn't think I did anything wrong?", and then
    > participates in a reasoned discussion about why that was?
    > No.

    And how can they do that when these social media platforms never discuss *anything*? All they do is send you a generic form notice that you've somehow broken their rules by saying something that they don't even bother to identify for you and then leave you in limbo. There's literally no person you can talk to and limited to no ability to appeal. The only people who ever seem to get any redress are the people whose stories blow up in the media and make the company look like asshats. And even then they don't deign to actually talk to their victim. They just send another form notice that says "Upon further review, we've reinstated you. Buh-bye!"

    > When someone goes on a multi-comment rant about how
    > people accurately flagging his trolling as trolling is
    > the worst kind of censorship ever, then yes.

    I've never done that and I wasn't talking about anyone who has done that, so I'm not sure why you're jumping in here with it in response to me.

  • Aug 28th, 2018 @ 11:16am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Attire

    Even if true, that doesn't make every contradiction a strawman.

  • Aug 27th, 2018 @ 12:35pm

    Re: Re: Attire

    > The projection is hilarious with you.

    Projection of what exactly?

  • Aug 27th, 2018 @ 12:35pm

    Re: Re: Attire

    You're apparently unfamiliar with the actual definition of 'strawman', nor the fact that the mere word 'so' does not signal one.

  • Aug 27th, 2018 @ 11:11am


    > it also goes that a home occupant does not assume the
    > risk of near constant monitoring by choosing to have
    > electricity in her home

    It's even more onerous when you can't even choose *not* to be connected to the government teat.

  • Aug 27th, 2018 @ 10:46am


    > allowing officers to dress up like soldiers while waging > the War at Home on the constituents they supposedly
    > serve.

    So when, say, the Berkeley Police have to go out and deal with the latest 'social justice' Antifa mob having a violent meltdown because the school dared to let a conservative make a speech on campus, they should be required to wear only their regular Officer Friendly uniforms because the riot gear might offend the rioters because it looks to 'soldiery'?

  • Aug 24th, 2018 @ 10:38am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    > Because it's not censorship and it is whining.

    Yes, it is censorship. It may not be 1A violation, but that doesn't mean it's not censorial. And when it happens, it's not 'whining' to object to it.

  • Aug 21st, 2018 @ 2:21am

    Re: Re: Re:

    > They're not shadowbanning based on political positions.

    So they keep claiming. Yet it strangely keeps happening.

    > but moderation decisions

    Heh. "Moderation decisions". Is that the euphemism dujour for censorship?

    > It's just that Trump-supporting people who have been moderated are
    > whining much more about it.

    Why do you characterize legitimate complaints about being censored as 'whining'?

    And I'm sure that only conservatives complain when they're censored. That sounds credible.

    > They're not shadowbanning at all, for that matter

    Prager U disagrees with you, and Facebook admitted what it had done when it became national news and reversed it.

    > It's not an in-kind contribution in any way shape or form.

    Hey, if paying a porn star is an in-kind donation, then all bets are off.

    > You have taken Dorsey's comments out of context.

    What context would that be?

    > You are taking comments by employees that were presented completely out of context

    What context would that be?

    > Stop it.

    No, I don't think I will. You'll just have to live with it or 'moderate' me.

  • Aug 20th, 2018 @ 12:52pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    > Once a digital platform becomes a certain size, it is no
    > longer "just a private company" but a public digital space

    Says who?

  • Aug 20th, 2018 @ 12:49pm

    Re: The Robber Baron problem.

    Well, that may or may not be true, but the fact remains that they DIDN'T envision it and they DIDN'T subject private entities to the same 1st Amendment restrictions as the government.

  • Aug 20th, 2018 @ 12:47pm


    It'll be interesting to see how the court rules on the political in-kind contribution issue, since that has nothing to do with the 1st Amendment.

    By shadow-banning (and sometimes outright banning) conservative political commentators and politicians, these giant tech platforms are basically making in-kind political contributions to the Democrat Party. Especially when their CEOs admit during interviews that their companies are 'left-leaning' and their employees are caught on hidden cameras openly admitting that the goal is to disappear speech and accounts from the right side of the political spectrum.

  • Aug 17th, 2018 @ 10:43am

    Password Lunacy

    My agency does this same nonsense with passwords, but it's even worse. I would *love* to have 90 days with a password. Instead, we're down to 45 days (a month and a half) before we have to change, and our passwords are required to be a *minimum* of 16 characters, and with dozens of rules specifically designed to prevent the password from being anything easily memorable, resulting in everything but literally something that looks like this-- JtwOPm1*%20Mw-- being rejected.

    Now add on top of that the fact that we have multiple systems, all with their own different password rules and change schedules.

    Since no one except Rainman can remember strings of gibberish characters like that which change every 45 days, the end result is a Post-It on everyone's computer with the passwords written down on them, which defeats the entire purpose of this whole blinkered system.

  • Aug 11th, 2018 @ 8:10am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    How would we know if anyone had successfully smuggled a bullet through security by hiding it in something else?

    If they were successful, no one but them would know about it, genius.

    The fact remains that a bullet is indeed small enough to be hidden inside something that's typically put in the dish that goes around the magnetometer unscreened, which means doing it *is* a workable strategy.

  • Aug 9th, 2018 @ 11:38am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    In the film, Malkovich (the assassin) made a single-shot polymer firearm. He brought it to a presidential fundraiser with the intent of shooting the president. Realizing that the bullet is the one component that couldn't defeat the magnetometers, he hollowed out a rabbits foot and attached it to his key ring. He put the bullet inside the rabbits foot and when he got to the magnetometer, he put it and his keys in the little dish that is provided for people's phones and keys which goes around the metal detectors because, duh, they're metal. Consequently, the bullet passed through security with no problem. The gun itself contained no metal and was tucked in his waistband and passed through with no issue. When Malkovich got to his seat in the ballroom, he unscrewed the end of the rabbits foot, removed the bullet, and loaded the gun, all out of sight under the dining table.

    You ask if that would work in real life. The answer is yes.

  • Aug 9th, 2018 @ 11:14am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Pentagon Papers

    Even if true, the freedoms guaranteed by the 1st Amendment are not 'ease of use' dependent.

  • Aug 9th, 2018 @ 9:30am

    Re: Re: Open source crypto software?

    > while guns are just destructive weapons.

    Sometimes that's exactly what you need. My sister is alive today because she had a destructive weapon on hand when she was attacked by a man whose intent was to rape and kill her.

More comments from btr1701 >>