'I have members of family that served, but I do not respect someone 'just because' they served.'
Respect is a scale, not a yes or no thing. I can respect someone a little or a lot. Serving in the military earns you some respect. Acting like a fuckwad loses you some respect. Bad actions can absolutely cancel out any respect that might be deserved for serving, e.g. McCain.
"...part of civil disobedience and protest is standing up and taking responsibility for your actions."
Can you show us where exactly in the rule book is says that? And besides, he has taken responsibility for it, he said he did it.
"Protesting an unjust law is all well and good, but doing it and then running away doesn't make you a hero."
Sacrificing your life in the country of your birth, not being able to see family and friends, and not being able to work in your field of expertise, all for the benefit of the everyone else, seems pretty heroic to me. Why do you have to be throw in jail be be called a hero?
"Yes, Snowden likely would have gotten the book thrown at him, and his life would be substantially worse if he'd stuck around, but that willingness to suffer is part of what makes us respect those who stand up against unjust laws."
That's your opinion only, many others don't require such an extreme level of personal sacrifice to award someone respect.
"...when he chose to flee the country rather than stand up and make his case here, he separated himself from Manning, and ceded at least part of the moral high ground civil disobedience stands on."
Well he was clearly smarter than Manning, because he knew exactly what would happen if he stuck around. Choosing to impale yourself on a manifestly unjust legal system doesn't give you any more moral high ground.
I don't think it's nebulous or ambiguous at all. The term fake news was originally applied quite literally; it was an item of news that was completely made up with little to no truthful substance. It's been highjacked by dishonest assholes who try to discredit factual stories or opinion pieces they don't like the content of. The definition only changes if you decide those people abusing it for their own dishonest purposes can get away with it. Saying the definition is nebulous or ambiguous is letting them win at the expense of the truth.
"The problem is that "fake news" doesn't really have a clear definition. It's a meaningless term."
fake adjective not genuine; imitation or counterfeit. "she got on the plane with a fake passport" synonyms: forgery, counterfeit, copy, sham, fraud, hoax, imitation, mock-up, dummy, reproduction, lookalike, likeness antonyms: genuine
news noun newly received or noteworthy information, especially about recent events. "I've got some good news for you" a broadcast or published report of news. plural noun: the news 'He was back in the news again" synonyms: report, announcement, story, account
The words are clearly defined so putting them together makes something also pretty clearly defined. What fake news is not is facts and opinions that someone doesn't agree with or doesn't want to believe, which is the definition that many, Trump supporters in particular, seem to be suddenly using. Intelligent people know exactly what fake news actually is, even if they're deliberately abusing the term for their supposed benefit. Idiots may genuinely not understand the difference.
"The lawsuit is baseless in many ways because the guy did not invent email, he invented AN email. It may have been new to him, it may have been new to his country, but it wasn't new in the world. There in lies the problem: he's not wrong when he says he invented email, if you speak generally and without qualifying that point."
Let me change a word and show you how silly that argument is:
"The lawsuit is baseless in many ways because the guy did not invent the car, he invented a car. It may have been new to him, it may have been new to his country, but it wasn't new in the world. There in lies the problem: he's not wrong when he says he invented a car, if you speak generally and without qualifying that point."
Sounds ridiculous because it is. Invention by definition is creating something that didn't exist before, not a your own version version of an extant system. Naming your program Email is not 'inventing email', which is what he very specifically claims to have done.
"However, making fun of him, calling him names, and making comments about his character and such may cross the line."
Firstly, it actually it crosses no legal line at all. That's all perfectly legal and is absolutely not libel unless it's knowingly and provably false. Secondly, what you refer to as making fun of him, calling him names, and making comments about his character I would describe as quite accurate descriptions of this guy. If someone makes such egregious and easily disproved claims that almost nobody believes (where are all his supporters?), and also public shits on the people that actually invented email, he fully deserves to be ridiculed and called a liar and a fraud, because that's what he is.
"Some of the recent posts by people like Karl are starting to push on nasty insults and insinuations of things that are not easily proven."
Post some examples. I suspect you may be mocked for your choices though...
"Mike, you have literally made a living for years by blogging personal attacks and insults against people with whom you disagree."
So what? If people do things that make them worthy of being insulted (and TD has documented thousands of examples) then they deserve to be insulted. Of course, thin-skinned authoritarians like you perceive any accurate description you don't agree with as an insult, because how dare anyone publicly call you out!
"You could have chosen to present your arguments and let the reader decide."
Er, how is that not what happens? I read, I decide.
"But you chose, over and over, to call people names. THAT is what this case is about."
Not sure if you realise how ignorant that sounds, but this is a defamation case, which by definition is not about name-calling but about stating falsehoods. Feel free to refute any points Mike's actually made in this story that would legally quality as defamation. I note you've done nothing close to that yet. Just lots of blah, blah.
"I'm delighted that one of them finally decided to fight back."
You're delighted that the legal system is being abused in an attempt to stifle someone's constitutionally guaranteed right of free speech? Wow, that's a pretty sick attitude. You know there's no legal merit here, so you know this is a pure SLAPP case.
Just because something is legal, doesn't make it moral or ethical. A decent human being, something Woods clearly isn't, would drop this and back away. There is no possible way he can come out of this without being seen as the person who has zero empathy for grieving family and friends. The only sure outcome is broadcasting to the world what a complete asshole he is. His bruised ego must be massive to think that's a worthwhile trade-off.
Also, who in their right mind is going to think Ken White is likely to lie to the court about a defendant's death?
"As soon as people realize it's ALL fake news, the better.
There is no objective news reporting anymore..."
This is a ridiculously extremist and ignorant point of view. There's a big difference between biased or non-objective reporting and actual fake news. Highlighting stories that fit your worldview and ignoring those that don't, or expressing mainly positive opinions about one particular political party and mainly negative opinions about another is NOT fake news. If you're really concerned about biased reporting, calling it fake news is a stupid and counterproductive attempt to fix the problem.
Russian agents hack both parties. Russian agents prefer Trump as president, as that would strengthen their world position. Russian agents realise only damaging Democrat emails, the subjects of which become major focal points for the election campaigns.
Sorry but that's not 'journalism', that's basically social engineering to attempt to swing more votes to your preferred candidate. Do you really think there was absolutely nothing newsworthy in the Republican info taken?
You'd expect this from an opposition party, but not another country. Your third paragraph is completely correct, because it turns out they didn't need to do any of those things to get the desired result.
"As I read it... it seemed like he was trying to convince himself more than trying to convince others."
As I read it he was just laying out a set of facts that most technologically apt people should be well aware of my now; that these companies collect data to use in ways that improve their service, because better service attracts and retains customers, which in turn makes them more money. Why he need to convince himself of something that's fairly well understood? Yes there are absolutely privacy trade-offs, and making these trade-offs more transparent and controllable is something a lot of these companies could improve on, which is a main point of the article.