Koby’s Techdirt Profile


About Koby

Koby’s Comments comment rss

  • Jan 24th, 2018 @ 7:10pm

    My take on trust

    "The most effective forms of censorship today involve meddling with trust and attention, not muzzling speech itself."

    It seems to me that the problem right now is trust. Government isn't trusted; corporations aren't trusted. TV networks aren't trusted; Silicon Valley Tech companies aren't trusted. We happen to live in a time when trust in a lot of important institutions seems to be very low. Until someone re-earns it (by being correct most of the time, instead of being rich) then there will be a constant desire for people on the internet to route around the un-trustworthy, leading to possibly undesirable outcomes through trial and error until it is re-established.

  • Nov 6th, 2017 @ 4:01pm

    Re: Re: Way off base

    News media companies are losing large audience shares because they are no longer trusted. Once upon a time, anyone who was biased was kicked off the news floor. News presenters were preferred because they had no perceived bias. If a reporter wanted the job, they needed to have no stake in the news that they were covering.

  • Jun 30th, 2017 @ 8:50pm

    Re: R.I.P. Germany tech

    It seems to me that a number of nations have wished to cultivate a tech sector, similar to the U.S. and Silicon Valley. But despite their best efforts and a lot of subsidies and planning, it hasn't happened. While in the past, several European countries have excelled at technological developments, they seem to be poorly equipped for the Internet Age. Computer development requires free speech, and it doesn't appear that all nations realize that yet.

  • Jun 26th, 2017 @ 2:23pm

    Neutral Forums are not a problem

    >>And it's worth reminding everyone considering supporting this bill that its words can cut both ways. Just because today we're talking about a topic a person on one end of the political spectrum cares about doesn't mean the other end can't use this law to force their views on campus in the same way.

    Many people actually want it to cut both ways. Conservative ideas are currently being censored. But if the shoe ever goes on the other foot, then leftist speech ought not be censored or shut down by rioting either.

    By the way, this isn't forcing views on the campus, this bill prevents the University from forcing views upon the students. You have a very strange viewpoint that if a speaker is tolerated to speak, that you must therefore agree with the speaker.

  • May 9th, 2017 @ 5:39pm

    Bothers To Mention

    "I'm not sure why it even bothers to mention that Trump himself is not a target of an investigation (or that Comey told him that three times)"

    He bothers to mention it because the first thing liberals say (demonstrated to me by reading several other discussion boards within the past hour) is "I bet Comey was fired because the FBI is investigating Trump."

  • Apr 12th, 2017 @ 7:17pm

    Re: Re: Choice

    Remember, socialists don't like it when you have an economic choice in the matter. By there simply being a choice, it is a threat to the crony government monopoly system that they create.

  • Feb 3rd, 2017 @ 7:23pm

    Socialist Communist

    >>Huh? I'm still stumbling over "socialist communist" that I'm already having difficulty figuring out how parodying someone is proof of "actual malice and negligence."

    It seems to be fashionable nowadays to equate Republicans with Nazis. Most modern Republicans abhor Nazi ideals, considering that Republicans are unabashedly capitalist. In case you didn't know, Nazi stands for nationalist SOCIALIST. It's essentially the opposite of what Republicans believe, and many believed in the 1940s that Nazis and Communists were closely aligned.

    While this lawsuit is certainly ill-advised, it perhaps does bring up an interesting question: Can someone slander another person, if the slander makes no sense as parody, and still use the "oh I meant it to be parody" as a defense? If so, have we discovered a loophole by which anything can be claimed about anyone else? Simply create a second account, slap on a parody tag, and unlimited-spech away?

  • Jan 31st, 2017 @ 6:40pm

    Paralysis No More

    >>Executive orders and presidential directives are being issued without legal guidance or consultation with the agencies affected.

    This is exactly why nothing "gets done" in Washington, because it will probably take 10 years to do studies and get buy-in and legal guidance from everyone and each stakeholder and department. Even assuming that he gets a second term, he will finally be able to act exactly two years after he's out of office. In the meantime, the bureaucracy will continue to spiral out of control.

    Instead, Trump is running things like a corporation, with a chain of command. Everyone in Washington dreams of being some kind of policy-maker, but Trump is going to change this. Instead, certain people that Trump trusts will develop the policy, while everyone else carries out the directives. It's probably going to make a bunch of the career bureaucrats very unhappy.

  • Jan 23rd, 2017 @ 3:10pm

    So tough

    It's tough for some authors to admit that a political opponent like Trump could do a better job of trashing these corporate trade agreements than their golden boy Obama. I'm hopeful Trump is going to prove that all sides of the political spectrum need to NOT elect the usual cronies during the primary process, which will result in far superior decisions being made than the usual career politicians, no matter who wins the November election.

  • Jan 10th, 2017 @ 4:14pm


    Apparently, up to 18000 email hacking attempts is not an indication of a state-sponsored actor. It can be accomplished by a brother and sister duo according to Bloomberg News. Also, the two were capable of a much more sophisticated hacking method that involved a malware network, instead of just phishing.

    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-01-10/draghi-renzi-among-victims-of-cyber-spyi ng-italy-s-ansa-says

  • Jan 9th, 2017 @ 6:06pm

    For Sure?

    How do we know that this John Podesta spear-phishing email was the only successful attempt? If we don't, then there may be no connection to the Pwn All The Things sleuthing and the actual leaker.

  • Dec 29th, 2016 @ 7:57pm

    A fascinating loophole

    If Amos Yee is granted asylum, it poses a potential loophole for immigration. That is, anyone who lives in a country with some kind of anti-free-speech laws can willingly violate those laws in a manner critical of their own government, hop on a plane, and force the United States to grand them indefinite legal status? Ought 4 billion+ people get an entry ticket into the USA?

  • Nov 28th, 2016 @ 6:40pm

    (untitled comment)

    The traditional media outlets have tried to position themselves as neutral and objective reporters; however, they are not, and a large segment of the population has now identified them as having a severe leftist bias. This is why the traditional media is in a downturn. It is also why Donald Trump appears to be continuing his twitter campaign.

    Michael Wolff is largely correct, that if the traditional media wants to survive and not simply get bypassed by new formats, then they need to change back to the formala that led to their success. They need to ditch the front page editorials and TV personalities. "Just the facts, sir."

  • Oct 21st, 2016 @ 9:50pm


    Quote: ""Today it is the Democrats. Tomorrow, it could be us," Rubio said in a statement."

    If Rubio, or any other politicians are involved in similar sleazy back-room corruption as what is being revealed in the John Podesta wikileaks emails, then I HOPE that they are exposed tomorrow.

  • Oct 19th, 2016 @ 4:03pm

    (untitled comment)


    "At some point you have to wonder if CNN is actively trying to be this bad at what it does, or if CNN boss Jeff Zucker is a subversive artist of the highest order, working tirelessly to craft a crushing, satirical look at modern American intellectual dysfunction."

    Note quite, CNN is just a leftist fraud masquerading as a news organization. It believes that it is functioning quite well.

  • Sep 9th, 2016 @ 7:53pm

    How do you deal with moderator bias?

    Moderator bias is a potential problem. We saw that in the last election's debates where CNN's Candy Crowley defended Obama's response to the Benghazi attacks, and Mitt Romney totally broke down:


    But it turns out Mitt Romney was actually correct, because the the UN Ambassador was actually brought out to the Sunday talk shows and DID blame the attack on an internet video:


    And this story continued where the administration ultimately blamed the Benghazi attacks on an internet video for the next 2 weeks, and not that it was a coordinated terror attack. How do we deal with this bias? The job of the moderator is NOT to "fact check" or "take sides" on a debate. It is to get the opinions of the candidates. If one side or another has a problem with the candidate's response to a question, then the candidates can rebut it. If the moderator has a problem with a candidate's response, they can take issue with it afterwards. But definitely no "fact checking" during the debate, no matter how obvious you think it should be. Let the debaters debate.

  • Dec 20th, 2015 @ 11:30am

    (untitled comment)

    The provision to block porn is likely in response to a number of stories like these which have been appearing in recent years:

    http://www.inquisitr.com/1392168/government-workers-caught-watching-porn-says-its-not-their-fa ult-they-were-bored/

    http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/scott-whitlock/2015/03/02/cbs-exposes-porn-watc hing-government-employees-who-cant-be-fired

    Basically, some government workers are watching porn all day instead of doing their jobs, and amazingly their superiors are unable/unwilling to fire them. So someone who wrote the language of the spending bill has decided to introduce this anti-porn language as a mandate that either the government IT admins block porn, or else they don't get funding.

  • Jan 30th, 2015 @ 10:20pm


    There are some people who get tattoos of a pistol on their hip. It can apparently look convincing at a distance and at night. Saying that charges are "common sense" doesn't make them common sense, since the situations faced by officers can sometimes be much more complex than you realize.

  • Jun 21st, 2014 @ 12:30pm

    Re: I'm not really liking this

    I too am confused as to exactly what they are proposing to do about "getting the money out of politics". What law do they think that they're going to pass in order to accomplish this? It sounds to me like they're soliciting donations prior to having a legislative platform, which usually attracts the most insidious politicians.

  • Feb 10th, 2014 @ 2:32pm

    So let me get this straight

    So a business is trying to claim fair use under copyright because it is a parody. But the problem isn't copyright, it's a trademark problem, which doesn't really have a parody exemption. But the business is trying to claim it isn't a business and that it's an art gallery, and that it's giving away its product for free, and it can therefore claim copyright fair use. In trying to predict what might happen if there is an actual court case, I would assume that the business is declared to be an business despite the way it wants to label itself, and that it violates the Starbucks trademark. However, all bets are off because it could be a false flag attack and we can't really trust judges to see through corporate shenanigans. Fascinating nonetheless because of the complexity!

More comments from Koby >>