HideLast Call: Our Black Friday weekend sale ends tonight! Shop now to save on all Techdirt gear »
HideLast Call: Our Black Friday weekend sale ends tonight! Shop now to save on all Techdirt gear »

Christopher Smith’s Techdirt Profile


About Christopher Smith

Christopher Smith’s Comments comment rss

  • Jul 5th, 2014 @ 3:01pm

    Re: Re: Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain

    You're begging the question. My "solution" is that while there are certainly issues with the way things are now, it's probably the best compromise out there, just as with the US approach to free speech.

    And my conclusion follows if you expect "freedom of the press" to be maintained as some sort of principle at all. Unless you're going to forbid the NYT from printing editorials--and deal with situations where the media aren't interested in covering newsworthy stories at all--then you're placing Real Journalists in a privileged position to distribute their political opinions while denying others the right to use their means to do the same.
  • Jul 5th, 2014 @ 9:47am

    Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain

    It's disappointing but unsurprising to see Techdirt and its community unreflectively jumping on the bandwagon here. The logic of the argument here isn't complicated, but it's apparently the elephant in the room.

    The entire outrage about campaign contributions is premised on the claim that political money equals votes. There are only two ways that can work: direct bribery, which undoubtedly happens but is a relatively minor influence, and using money to purchase publicity. Therefore, the crucial implicit claim is that political publicity directly manipulates the electorate's votes.

    Now I happen to agree wholeheartedly with that claim; I believe that most of the incumbent's advantage is a matter of the mere-exposure effect. However, an honest adherent to that claim has to acknowledge that the issue is not money per se but political publicity.

    If that's the case, then the proposed "reforms" boil down to carving out a privileged position for incumbent media companies. CBS and the New York Times will still have massively wide-reaching platforms from which to push their political goals, but companies and individuals whose business happens not to be the mass media will be blocked from straightforward access to modern soapboxes.

    Support Mayday if you like, but be honest about what you want: the government's picking who's allowed to reach an audience with political messages.
  • Jun 5th, 2014 @ 4:17am

    Re: Re: Not 100% yet

    There's no significant harm or risk in this case, but referer headers and the like can leak information, and so browsers warn about mixed page loads, and they generally won't accept JavaScript for a secure page over an unsecure connection.
  • Jun 5th, 2014 @ 1:11am

    Not 100% yet

    The ads are still being served with non-protocol-relative URLs, giving a mixed-content warning. And Firefox doesn't like your certificate, though not enough to give me a red page.
  • Feb 17th, 2014 @ 9:29am

    Even OTA TV isn't TV

    I was recently picked to do Nielsen ratings, and I figured I'd give it a try as entertainment. When they called me to do the screening survey, the representative specifically told me that a TV tuner card, watching OTA broadcast TV, doesn't count as television if I use a projector or a computer monitor as output, though if I used a monitor marketed as a TV with HDMI input, it would count. I'm amazed advertisers are still willing to accept prices based on these studies.
  • Sep 13th, 2013 @ 4:43pm

    Not a new issue

    This certainly is an interesting edge case, but it's not new one. Established law in the US has been that courts can compel production of the key to a safe but not divulging a combination; this is just a logical extension to new sorts of "safes".
  • Jun 11th, 2013 @ 8:09pm

    Glenn Beck?

    For all the legitimate criticism, unless you were making a joke I didn't get, I'm not sure how Glenn Beck qualifies as non-political, especially in this particular context.
  • Apr 16th, 2013 @ 12:34pm

    (untitled comment)

    Politicians with stupid policies get elected in large part because the media love to cover idiocy because it gets lots of attention. This causes the mere-exposure effect to kick in, where someone gets voted for merely because his name is familiar (which explains most of the incumbent's advantage).
  • Apr 8th, 2013 @ 8:57am

    Rights and powers

    Mike, for the detailed analysis you do in these cases, you tend to trip into the practice of throwing the word "right" around inaccurately. It's important to hold the government (and cloud-yellers) to what the law actually says, and the Constitution does not claim that the government has any rights whatsoever; rights are held by the people, which delegate specific (ha!) powers to the government.
  • Mar 7th, 2013 @ 1:00pm

    Excel spreadsheet?!

    On top of everything else, how are the producing parties supposed to aggregate everything into a format with a limit of 64K rows?
  • Mar 7th, 2013 @ 10:56am

    Not sure whence the outrage

    While I'm usually in agreement with both Mike's analyses and critical of most think-of-the-children measures, I fail to see how it's outrageous for parents or guardians to have the authority to access their minor children's online accounts. They have legal responsibility for their children, and they already have analogous authority to read their diaries, listen in on their phone calls, and monitor their computer usage from the client end. In the cases of actual mistreatment, as noted in the article, children can be legally emancipated, and parental rights are terminated.

This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it