In some ways, this lines up with something I noted in my 'Brittle Grip' series of posts: growing calls from the extremely rich to not only be able to use their money without limit to shape the political process but to do so anonymously to avoid being "intimidated" or "vilified".
Want to not be vilified? It's very simple: don't do things that ordinary people consider villainous!. Trying to do villainous things anonymously just makes you look like a villain with something to hide.
That is not something that capitalists believe; that is something that Objectivists believe. (And, sure enough, if you look at the FAQ link at the top of the linked website, you find a quote by Ayn Rand featured prominently.) Despite several decades of Rand and her disciples' self-serving attempts to rewrite history, actual capitalism, as described by Adam Smith, has little to nothing to do with Objectivism.
Read The Wealth of Nations sometime and ask yourself, each time it teaches some principle, "would the people who loudly defend 'capitalism' and condemn 'socialism' today support or condemn this principle?" You'd be surprised how often the answer is "condemn."
Objectivism is a hijacking of capitalism, twisting it to serve evil purposes, and it should not be considered actual capitalism any more than, (just to give one obvious example off the top of my head,) the KKK should be considered actual Christianity.
But a lawsuit against an online publication solely out of vindictiveness (even if his hatred of the publication is for perfectly valid reasons) is a terrible, terrible idea that seems to go against his supposed libertarian views. It's also just petty and vindictive, and only cements in the misleading idea that Silicon Valley is full of ego-maniacal billionaires for whom the ends always justify the means.
The ends justifying the means is a core precept for libertarians. Every ideology has a set of core values, an "Ideal Man" that it holds up to be emulated. For libertarianism, the Ideal Man is a sociopath, a person who believes he does not have to live by the rules of the society that supports him.
It's a bit ironic. One of the founders of PayPal reinvested his billions in trying to solve some of the most serious problems facing the world. Another, it seems, took his money and set out to make them worse.
Ethics can't be "taught" People are either ethical or they aren't.
Everyone's born as a selfish little brat who literally doesn't understand anything beyond "I WANT WHAT I WANT, RIGHT NOW!!!" And then, over the course of the first several years of our lives, we (most of us at least) learn to become civilized, rational beings. So clearly it is something that can be taught in one form or another; otherwise, where does ethical behavior come from?
That's simply not true. Lawrence Lessig famously likes to say that, but he's wrong. Fair use is the rights of the public to make use of public culture; copyright is a set of temporary exceptions to those rights, carved out in the name of encouraging the further development of culture. Calling fair use "an exception to copyright" is putting the cart before the horse.
I have personally executed the NIT on a computer under my control and observed that it did not make any changes to the security settings on my computer or otherwise render it more vulnerable to intrusion than it already was. Additionally, it did not “infect” my computer or leave any residual malware on my computer.
Sorry, Agent Alfin, but that's not what malware means. Malware is software that takes control of a computer away from the owner/user and causes the computer to act against their interests.
Have you included links in your submissions? IME that seems to trip the automated filter pretty reliably, if you put more than one link. (A bit ironic considering how liberally they tend to be scattered throughout the typical Techdirt article...)
Because competence and being well-informed necessarily introduces a bias towards the truth. In a trial that hinges on a technical matter, "unbiased" is synonymous with "ignorant", which is dangerous when it might end up setting precedents.
No matter what you think of Google as an entity, having courts tell it what can and cannot be in its index seems very dangerous.
Why? Isn't that what courts are for: to determine when a certain behavior breaks the law and tell people who are breaking it to stop? Isn't that literally the most basic function of the court system--and now you're saying it's "very dangerous"?