That One Guy’s Techdirt Profile


About That One GuyTechdirt Insider

That One Guy’s Comments comment rss

  • Mar 19th, 2018 @ 7:16pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Big Content seems to be getting all it wants of late.

    Keep dodging and projecting your own actions if you think it accomplishes anything, just don't expect anyone else to be impressed.

  • Mar 19th, 2018 @ 7:14pm

    If it's not games then...

    Games(pen and paper, board or digital) make for convenient punching-bags as they tend not to have 'generous' groups supporting them that might be upset to have their product maligned.

    They also serve as an easy out, if you blame the games that a violent person may or may not have played, then you don't need to look any deeper.

    Did the person have psychological issues that were missed/ignored?

    Did they have a problematic home-life that was also missed/ignored?

    How about influences other than games, like movies, tv and so on?

    School life, how was that?

    Basically were there societal influences that might have caused them to snap and decide that killing one or more people was an acceptable act, influences that might raise some uncomfortable questions and involve spreading some blame beyond just one person and one aspect of their life.

  • Mar 19th, 2018 @ 7:02pm

    'I reject your studies and substitute my self-rightousness'

    Nah, I've saved several kingdoms, planets, even a galaxy or two, that's plenty to 'sooth the last pangs of conscience' over killing digital people.

    (Understanding the difference between fantasy and reality might help too, but I'm sure it's of negligible importance in comparison.)

    After all, if ending a digital 'life' is supposed to be something to feel guilty over, then saving one should more than make up for it, especially given the difference in scope.

  • Mar 19th, 2018 @ 6:05pm

    Re: Re: Big Content seems to be getting all it wants of late.

    Yeah, think I'll need to see the actual study and what it involved before I take them at their word, given the 'study' that came up the last time 'pirates sites are the number one vector of malware' was mentioned it was laughably bad.

  • Mar 19th, 2018 @ 5:59pm


    And of course after all that they still try to pretend that they have the moral high ground over... well, anyone really.

  • Mar 19th, 2018 @ 1:47am

    That's... one way to put it, sure

    The fact that there are simple and reasonable ways to improve on the bill, which Congress is blatantly ignoring, is problematic.

    In the same way that a proposed seatbelt that experts in the field have stated will not only not decrease injuries but make them worse would be 'problematic', sure.

    Now me, I'd probably go with such terms as 'disgusting', 'grossly irresponsible', 'perfectly highlighting what a vile PR stunt this is', things like that. Calling the blatant indifference towards the significant harm that stands to result from the passage of the bill, including to the ones it's claimed to be for, goes well beyond 'problematic'.

    You want to 'fix' the bill, you can do it in one simple step: Kill it. Get rid of it entirely. It won't do what the supporters claim it will do, it will make things worse... you don't 'rehabilitate' something that bad by moderating some of the problems, you sack it entirely.

  • Mar 18th, 2018 @ 8:58pm

    'Congrats, your union wants you around. No-one else does though'

    Every union need to be that strong.

    It's not 'strength' to hold the position that it doesn't matter what you do, they'll fight to keep you employed(and even fight to keep you from being investigated as the AC above points out), especially when it comes with a very real cost in the loss of trust from the public they have to interact with on a daily basis, since the public knows that the 'bad apples' will not and cannot be removed in large part because of the union.

    Maybe it's just me but if I were paying dues to a group meant to help me, while keeping me from unjustly being fired would be a part of what I would expect, not doing everything possible to make my reputation toxic with those I need to interact with would also be on the list.

  • Mar 17th, 2018 @ 10:07pm

    Just because you're a jerk, doesn't mean you're wrong

    Even if it is being done for petty, retaliatory reasons it wouldn't change whether or not the underlying concerns are valid or not.

    Whether someone raises a concern because they want to screw over someone or because they truly want to see the issue addressed is less important than whether or not the concern itself is sound.

  • Mar 17th, 2018 @ 4:32pm


    I'd settle for investigations by an unbiased third party with the power to issue demands and the willingness to hand out punishments when those demands were refused. Charges, civil or criminal as appropriate with the trial handled by again by unbiased third parties, and a permanent blacklist from any public office or position for those found guilty of abuse of power/authority(in addition to any fines and/or jail time).

    No need to sink to their level, just clear out the extensive rot and leave the threat of another purge hanging over the heads of the replacements in the hopes that they will act more appropriately. And if not? Rinse and repeat.

  • Mar 17th, 2018 @ 4:25pm

    Re: Re: Even if it's a small percentage

    As I and others have said in the past, 'a good cop who covers for a bad cop is not a good cop.'

  • Mar 16th, 2018 @ 12:29am

    Re: Re: "What's this $130K charge on your account?" "Oh that, nothing."

    They are seeing if people believe Trump didn't have the affair, but Cohen paid blackmail money without asking Trump in the belief that the affair happened.

    So, trying to see if people would reject the notion that Trump had an affair, paid money to hush it up and lied about it, but believe that nothing of importance happened and he just so happened to pay a hundred and thirty grand to a stranger he had no real connection to, or that his lawyer somehow managed to trick him into signing over that much money with no clue what it was for?

    Had an affair, tried to hush it up and lied about it.

    Didn't have an affair, shows himself grossly irresponsible with money by giving over a hundred grand to a stranger for no reason.

    So monumentally stupid and/or gullible that he can be tricked into just handing that sort of money to someone.

    None of those are exactly flattering options.

  • Mar 16th, 2018 @ 12:24am

    'Fake news: I reject your reality and substitute my own.'

    While I've no doubt he'd just brush it aside as 'fake news', there's a difference between being accused of lying in general, and having it demonstrated in court. One of those is all too easy to spin as a baseless accusation, the other, less so.

    It wouldn't budge his diehard supporters(and and this point I don't think I want to know what would), but it could shift some people who were only mild supporters, and possibly lead to some entertainment as his supporters try to spin/dismiss it.

  • Mar 15th, 2018 @ 9:31pm

    "What's this $130K charge on your account?" "Oh that, nothing."

    Definitely possible. However, that would show Trump and Cohen to be bald-faced liars in court since Cohen dienies Trump knew about the pay off, and Trump denies the affair.

    Wait, so Trump denies it happened at all, his lawyer claims Trump didn't know she was being paid to stay silent about The-Afair-That-Didn't-Happen... does he deny that she was paid $130,000? Because if that happened, then it would seem that they are arguing that Trump paid someone a hundred and thirty grand for absolutely nothing.

    They really did not think that one through, though at least watching them scramble about trying to bury it provides some entertainment value.

  • Mar 15th, 2018 @ 9:27pm


    I dunno, my first thought would be that those involved might have asked just to make a point.

    "Everyone else is asking for military surplus that they don't need, so clearly we need something that we definitely don't need. If you deny our request as unreasonable, then what's your excuse for giving them what they ask for?"

  • Mar 15th, 2018 @ 4:11pm

    Playing the long game?

    “Unless shielded by a protective order, the name, office address, office telephone number and office e-mail address, if any, relating to law enforcement officers, other public officials or employees acting in their official capacity, and expert witnesses, may be remotely accessible.”

    Given it would seem that even the police impacted had no idea this was going on, and even the union is saying that this is more than they asked for, I almost have to wonder if this is meant for the police at all, or at least primarily for them.

    If you can block the names of one category of civil servants, police in this case, then once you've made that exception it's much easier to apply that same benefit to other groups, say politicians, who might not want people to be able to dig through any records that might involve them.

    While I'll absolutely admit that this is pure conjecture the fact that they are apparently already taking steps to obscure what they're doing leaves me to wonder if this is merely another step in that direction under the guise of shoving yet another wedge between the public and police by granting them even more 'rights'.

  • Mar 15th, 2018 @ 1:08pm

    Nice projection there

    I'm pretty sure that defending torture is much more likely to aid terrorists than objecting to the appointment of someone who fully supports the practice.

    After all, 'the USG will torture your family if they think you're working for us, or even if they think you have some intel' would make for a great recruitment pitch and/or way to get people furious with the USG, and if someone knows that they face torture if they are captured they are much more likely to fight to the death, which can lead to greater casualties on both sides.

    If anyone is supporting terrorists it's those engaged in the practice of torture, and those defending the practice, including Liz Cheney.

  • Mar 14th, 2018 @ 3:27pm

    "Well if you don't need the money..."

    As of March 1, [Mayor T.J.] Redefer said had not yet been privy to the departmental justifications of need.

    If they are selling the items, and refuse to account for them, then the solution seems simple: Stop funding them.

    Clearly the Dewey PD has all the resources and funding that they need thanks to the 1033 program, and as such it would be a waste to spend taxpayer dollars on them. If they want taxpayer money then they better start answering the 'requests' put forth to them about what they have, where it is, what they are doing with it and why they need it.

    If they cannot, or will not answer basic questions like that then it's clear they are not interested in serving the public, and as such have no business being paid by the public.

  • Mar 14th, 2018 @ 3:04pm

    "... The what now?"

    "Honestly, I have no idea what you're talking about, we don't engage in any moderation of our platform, as that's far too risky should we miss something. If you have a problem with it, well, take it up with the legislators who made moderation an all or nothing proposition. Since we lack the resources to go with the former, we were forced to go with the latter or go under entirely."

  • Mar 14th, 2018 @ 3:00pm


    If that is the best criticism you can come up with, you are clearly not paying attention and focused on entirely the wrong things.

    Seriously, there are bigger issues at play than two companies being short-sighted idiots, and focusing on them is a classic case of ignoring the forest for the trees(even if they are rather big ones).

  • Mar 14th, 2018 @ 2:44pm

    Re: Re: 'Eww, a black person. We don't sell to the likes of YOU.'

    That seems to be another apples to oranges comparison. A platform for hosting content(text, video, whatever) is not really in the same category as a regulated method of communication that might as well be a utility(and at this point probably should be considered as such).

    Digital vs Physical makes any examples sloppy, but one way would be to say that the water company cutting off your water because they don't like which party you voted for is notably different than someone who opened up an empty lot they owned for people to use deciding that no, they'd rather not have the guy wearing a white, hooded robe spouting racists rot using their property to do it(especially if they had in place rules specifically prohibiting that).

    Some have argued that sites like Youtube and Facebook are so pervasive that essentially thanks to their success they should be considered public forums no different than a public park, and as such shouldn't be allowed to choose who can and can not use their platforms, but as of yet I'm not buying it, not for the big platforms and certainly not for the smaller ones.

    'Popular' does not automatically translate to 'public', and unlike a 'common carrier', where there might not be an alternative that is remotely comparable(if there is one at all), there are alternatives to those platforms.

More comments from That One Guy >>