That One Guy’s Techdirt Profile

thatoneguy

About That One Guy Techdirt Insider




That One Guy’s Comments comment rss

  • Aug 20th, 2019 @ 11:07am

    Re:

    In the same way that a law requiring a business serving drinks only serve those above a certain again might not specifically require the bar to check ID's, despite the fact that's basically the only reasonable way to comply with the law, sure.

    The 'it doesn't require upload filters' argument has been thrown out and ripped to shreds before, with the shorthand being that if a platform is supposed to make sure that copyrighted materials aren't posted, and they have to do this hundreds, thousands, or millions of times per day, the only way to do that is with upload filters.

  • Aug 20th, 2019 @ 10:58am

    Re:

    I'd lean more towards a 'if you can't use it responsibly, then you don't get to keep it' type punishment, where repeated abuse of the DMCA regarding a copyright would result in the complete revocation of that copyright, leading to content in question being immediately and irrevocably put into the public domain after a set amount of 'strikes' in a certain period of time(say six in a six month period, or something like that).

    While there would have to be a different penalty for someone fraudulently presenting themselves as the copyright owner over a work the penalty would apply if an individual or company was hired by the actual owner to send notices on their behalf, such that they couldn't bypass the penalty by outsourcing the claims, and companies would have a very real reason to care about the accuracy of claims rather than only caring about quantity.

    Not only would it be a delightful bit of turnabout with the whole 'six strikes' garbage that's been tossed around before, but it would put some real teeth into the DMCA and curb abuse if people knew that they stood to actually suffer a real penalty.

  • Aug 20th, 2019 @ 9:31am

    Re: Re:

    ... what?

  • Aug 20th, 2019 @ 8:11am

    Re: Re: Re:

    And/or are very easy to lead around by their hormones, having never learned self-control.

  • Aug 20th, 2019 @ 8:09am

    'Have you no shame, cover your face you temptress!'

    As Stephen notes if you're that easy to 'distract' the problem is not on the woman's side.

  • Aug 20th, 2019 @ 7:37am

    Re:

    That... is a very good point, and one I should have caught. If no less than the EU's highest court were to parrot the idea that 'it doesn't require filters' then it wouldn't really matter what the politicians and those that owned them wanted with regards to filters, they'd have a wicked time demanding that they be implemented, and without mandatory filters the articles are still a mess but they'd be notably less problematic.

  • Aug 20th, 2019 @ 7:36am

    It's practically an official sport here...

    Don't be a pedant.

    Have you seen TD's comment section?

  • Aug 20th, 2019 @ 5:33am

    One can arrest you, the other not so much.

    Time to quit worrying about government agency data collection and start worrying about private corporation data collection.

    While both are bad, only one of the two has the ability to arrest and/or jail you, and it isn't the private corporation.

  • Aug 20th, 2019 @ 5:27am

    Good luck, you'll probably need it

    While having both articles 13 and 17 scrapped entirely would obviously be the best result, with removing the more problematic clauses being a decent second best, I do have to worry about the result here given we're talking about something copyright related, a subject that tends to turn the minds of otherwise rational people into mush such that the most absurd things can be excused Because Copyright.

    It also strikes me that there's another potential way for the court to dodge doing anything, namely by using the dishonest argument of 'it doesn't specifically require filters' that was trotted out time and time again leading up to the vote, where they could simply use that as an excuse to dismiss and ignore that the practical results of such a demand on platforms does in fact require filters.

    That said hopefully the CJEU manages to keep both spines and minds intact and tosses both articles 13 and 17 into the garbage pile where they belong, both for the sake of the public and the ever-so-delightful schadenfreude that would result from such an action.

  • Aug 19th, 2019 @ 8:16pm

    Ah to be so optimistic...

    For a trademark to be registered for a brand of clothing, the trademark "must be used in a trademarked fashion," he said on Twitter. "In other words, it has to be used on tagging or labeling for the products. In this case, just putting the word 'the' on the front of a hat or on the front of a shirt is not sufficient trademark use," he said.

    I mean, they're not wrong, yet at the same time this is the USPTO we're talking about, who's motto might as well be 'if there's a way to screw something up we will find it.'

  • Aug 19th, 2019 @ 8:01pm

    Before jumping in the lake, check for water first

    Ah good old confirmation bias. A 'whistleblower' came forward with what they claimed were incriminating documents and the gullible simple took it as a given that they were incriminating because it supported what they already believed, only to yet again be left with nothing.

    You'd think by now they'd have learned, 'check your evidence and sources before trumpeting about how they prove you right', but I suppose in their mindset the fact that they were duped yet again will just feed into the conspiracy theory they cherish so strongly as evidence that Google must just be really good at hiding the real evidence.

  • Aug 19th, 2019 @ 7:57pm

    Sometimes it IS malice

    'It is difficult to get a politician to understand something, when their argument depends on their not understanding it.'

    Destroying Section 230 because you're ignorant of how the internet works is not a partisan past time. Both of the major political parties seem to be embracing this nonsense.

    Much like people trying to undermine encryption by making false claims that have long been debunked or shown to be fatally flawed I'd say it's well past time to grant the 'ignorance' pass on things like this.

    At this point there is no excuse for a politician issuing public statements to not have done the research on the topic, and as such the default assumption should be that they are deliberately lying or otherwise being dishonest when they make flawed or flat out wrong statements regarding 230.

    Senator Josh Hawley's ridiculous anti-230 bill would block companies from being able to moderate at all. While Beto's bill here would attempt to pressure them into moderating much more stringently. It's unclear how you could possibly reconcile these two approaches -- both of which are almost certainly unconstitutional.

    As I noted the last time the question was raised: 'Nerd harder'. If the platforms really cared they'll figure out a way to both moderate more and less, and inability to do that will be laid entirely on their feet rather than at the feet of the politicians that demanded they do two contradictory things at once.

  • Aug 19th, 2019 @ 7:27pm

    Deliberate malice is not 'incompetence'

    In reality, they were just being blocked from using a service they'd paid for by an imploding company that was losing at least $40 million every month by the end of July 2018. It's all another lovely example of executive incompetence,

    Uh, no. Incompetence would be if they rolled out a new build for the app and it ended up screwing with random user passwords. Deliberately changing the passwords of specific 'heavy users' to prevent them from using the app that they paid for is straight up fraud.

    Had they released a statement that the service was struggling and as a result they were going to have to change the terms to something like 'get a ticket once a week' rather than 'get a ticket once a day' then that would have been once thing, but they weren't even honest enough for that and decided to, as far as I can tell without telling the users, restrict certain members of them from using the service that, and I can't emphasize this enough, they were paying for.

  • Aug 19th, 2019 @ 12:42am

    Re:

    Having the right to speak your mind is not the same thing as having the right to an audience for your speech. You are not entitled to an audience, no matter how much you might think you are.

    Now now, let's not be too quick to dismiss the idea that if a particular platform refuses to let you use it to speak that's the same thing as not being able to speak at all.

    I mean just as one example think of all the people who would jump at the chance to be able to use Fox's platform to tell people what they think of Trump and how he screwed up yet again on national tv.

    If a prohibition against using one platform is equivalent to a prohibition by all platforms then it seems to me they'd have no choice but to let all those people on, and that strikes me as having some serious potential for entertainment.

  • Aug 18th, 2019 @ 9:31pm

    Depends on which side of the badge/bench/bars you're on

    It's all a matter of perspective. What's a huge problem to some(the general public) is a massive boon to others(the prison system, prosecutors/judges, government agencies...).

  • Aug 18th, 2019 @ 7:29pm

    Re: Re: It’s basic bitch projection isn’t it?

    Projection and an attempt to shift the focus to the other party.

  • Aug 16th, 2019 @ 9:11pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: As is Techdirt...

    Yeah, saw it in the crystal ball, and I'm sure the article and comment section will be quite interesting reads.

  • Aug 16th, 2019 @ 8:48pm

    Cleaning the blood while ignoring the stab wound

    During June and July, WIREDidentified more than 500 examples of caste-based hate, threats, violence and ridicule attacking different communities within the Tamil language on TikiTok. Users extol the virtues of specific castes and verbally attack local caste-leaders, which can trigger hate crimes.

    India’s caste structure is a feudal system of social division stratifying people into hierarchical groups based on their background and work. These include: priests, warriors, farmers/traders, labourers and outcasts. Dalits, formerly the ‘untouchables,’ fall outside the system and are widely persecuted.

    Videos found on TikTok include casteist-hate speech posted by users identifying themselves from high castes while celebrating and singing the praises of their communities. These quickly spill into threats of physical violence with members of some communities claiming dominance over other castes.

    While removing the worst of the lot from the platform would probably work as a short-term solution, if the government actually wanted to reduce that problem in the future they're going to need to grow a spine and admit that the caste-system itself is problematic and needs to go. When people are raised in a culture that holds certain groups inferior or superior to others it's hardly surprising that their attitude and behavior will reflect that, all the social platform is doing is giving them a highly visible avenue to express that.

  • Aug 16th, 2019 @ 8:07pm

    Re:

    While that is basically what they said, they'd never be honest enough to be that blunt about it.

  • Aug 16th, 2019 @ 8:06pm

    '... this case again?!'

    'The testimony of a DEA chemist wouldn't have any impact on a case that hinges upon whether the substance in question is actually illegal'?

    Talk about a judge that has already determined the outcome and is determined to make sure the ruling is the 'correct' one.

More comments from That One Guy >>