On the intellectual side, I hope TechDirt survives.
On the emotional side, I am offended by the angry-mob treatment and now might even feel gladdened by the demise of TechDirt.
On the intellectual side, I barely noticed TechDirt in the first place, and think I'm unlikely to ever notice again.
On the emotional side, I remain saddened by the general malaise of journalism.,
On the intellectual side, I didn't even know that TechDirt was related to EFF.
On the emotional side, EFF brings back old memories of the original EFF attorney and occasional drinking associate... But also a skilled editor who enjoyed "vigorous" discussions...
On the intellectual side, the name "TechDirt" sounds like digging up the dirt, which sounds like yellow journalism anyway.
In conclusion, TechDirt bookmark deleted. I hope you survive and even have such tremendous success that I can't avoid hearing of TechDirt in the future--but I'm not going to invest in the possibility or hold my breath on it.
Well, at least you are polite enough (or something) to refer to me as "the gentleman". However, your eagerness to hop on the hate-the-outsider bandwagon seems to have misled you a bit. I'm going to be polite and try to clarify a couple of your misconceptions even though the angry mob has pretty well convinced me that it is pointless.
I absolutely do NOT think that Mother Jones has a better financial model. (It is possible that one of the ACs made a reference to one of my suggested financial models, but I mostly ignore ACs.) Nor do I think I am "above it all", but rather I weep for the state of journalism in today's America and consider it quite possible that Putin is coaching #PresidentTweety in ways to destroy it completely. (If I were Russian, I would also weep for the state of Russian journalism. At the tombstone.)
Most importantly, I am NOT in a position to help TechDirt. I do NOT have that much money to make a difference. You evidently think you helped by buying a couple of t-shirts (though it is unclear if you made an additional donation). Congratulations, and I hope it makes you happy and helps save TechDirt.
However, I can definitely say that the t-shirt model of financial support is NOT one that I agree with. There is a real cost of t-shirts and I mostly regard that part as wasted. Do I have to keep reminding you that I don't have so much money to waste?
Given the atmosphere of TechDirt, I'm now anticipating an argument about the advertising value of people wearing the t-shirts. Sorry, but I cannot help you there. I don't need any more t-shirts and I rarely go in public while wearing a visible t-shirt.
Perhaps it's called advertising? Or perhaps pearls before swine? (The Japanese version involves a horse.)
Actually, what I would really like is to cause people to think more deeply about the general problems of journalism. I obviously think that "financial models" are involved, but so far I have detected little sign of much thinking here.
Just the usual shallow tripe one sees all over the Web these days. (Hmm... Is that why the google killed usenet?)
So I should just give up hope, eh? Is it possible that what seems like a non sequitur to you might have some actual meaning? Can you conceive of such a thing?
Obviously I doubt it. Even more strongly I doubt that you could ask a question worth answering.
Actually the AC raised a better point than you, but I don't respond to ACs, so I'll non-sequitur-iously transfer the response here.
I think that even small donors like me and probably like each person who has participated in this thread SHOULD be able to see how their individual donations, small though they be, actually do contribute to solving the problems that concern those small donors. I think that even small donors deserve some respect.
Took me a LONG time to understand that meaningful respect for the individual is a call for a universal principle, but I'm still working on the implementation. Obviously. Some sort of conflict with the thing about suffering fools gladly.
If I helped motivate you to make that donation, then perhaps I should claim some credit?
And no, I have never heard of any substantial social or other contributions linked to this website. The user base seems quite small. Appealing to Congress does little to sway me considering recent Congressional results. If I think the contribution of Congress is worth nothing, then Techdirt's effect matters little.
The principle is good. Now you've reminded me of the time I donated to the ACLU. No results that I could detect on the issue that concerned me, so I didn't donate again.
I thank you for providing additional evidence of my main points.
If your actual intention was to encourage me to donate some money to help save TechDirt, then I have to express my condolences on your failure. I suppose you have such a success-filled resume so you could not care less about one more failure.
As noted, it will sadden me if TechDirt dies. However, your "contribution" might reduce my sadness. I'm confident you didn't have such a deep plan in mind, so I can't thank you for that one.
I agree with your cause and I sincerely hope you win. Still I'm not planning to donate. In short, I don't have enough money to donate to every good cause that needs it. Justice is on your side, but justice-on-your-side and ten bucks will buy you a fancy cup of coffee these days.
What TechDirt is doing is good, but not good enough in comparison to other options. (For example, I have donated to Mother Jones and Bernie Sanders.) Most of my reason for not supporting TechDirt in what may be its hour of ultimate need is because I don't think TechDirt matters that much. If the readership is huge or hugely influential, then it is not apparent, so it appears that the disappearance of TechDirt will be a minor sadness.
Now I have suggested better alternatives for financial models, but near as I can recall, there was no interest expressed from the TechDirt people. What I can remember is a lot of asinine and destructive criticism without any evidence of deep thought underneath. Rather than repeating the constructive suggestions, I'll just recap the problem: The current financial models of journalism are failing. BADLY.
There are two main models in play. One model is eyeballs-for-advertisers leading to disaster porn (like CNN), which leads to a death spiral (because reality is mostly boring, not interesting, and the ratings must decline over time). The second model is propaganda-for-rich-fanatics that makes FAUX "news" and Breitbart so "successful", leading to #PresidentTweety. I rest my case and judging by yesterday's press conference, I think gawd is about to rest America's soul.
Not in the summary or in the comments? The "unitary executive" theory is the judicial rationale for many of Dubya's extreme policies and obviously great for #PresidentTweety. No evidence I've been able to find for Judge Gorsuch's position on it, though I'm sure that Trump checked his personal loyalty quite carefully.
Also important is his position on res gestae, but ALL judges claim to respect that. How can you tell which judges will run wild over precedent when promoted to SCOTUS? I know of no way to be sure.
One more thing regarding Gorsuch. They say he's an originalist, but the original authors obviously did NOT intend for their thoughts to be permanent and perfect. They understood that change happens which is why they provide mechanisms to AMEND the Constitution. What? A conservative self-contradiction. Shocked, I'm shocked.
You thought Trump was having trouble understanding and saying "the cyber". Not at all. Just his terror of the Freudian slip.
Give my love to Putin, eh?
P.S. I'm not saying that Comey is a Russian mole. I'm saying that there is a high probability that there is at least one mole in the FBI office in NYC and you should start looking in the cabal of FBI agents who threatened Comey back in October... And have a super-nice day!
Not worth responding to ACs, but real questions from real people will normally receive responses.
Extending the typology, there are also super-shallow people who, having nothing to say, insist upon saying nothing. Usually ACs, but TechDirt doesn't seem to have any convenient way to render the ACs invisible.
Some deep thinkers want to encourage other people to think more deeply. However, there are also deep thinkers who prefer other people to think less deeply, the better to manipulate and take advantage of those people.
The worst (and most dangerous) case is people who are shallow thinkers, but who think they are deep thinkers, and #PresidentTweety is one of those people. Trump is not at war with the media. He is at war with reality. Trump wants to create belief in a straw-man fake reality of horror and collapse so he can then claim improvements by tweaking the fake beliefs back towards reality.
At least Duterte killed (alleged) evildoers and Mussolini made the trains run on time! That's not the reality of America. (Well, actually the American trains aren't so reliable, but Trump's supporters in flyover country are the least likely to use trains.)
My favorite sig should make it obvious, but I'm on the side of more deep thinking. You have to think deeply to understand your free choices in a meaningful way and to understand the constraints and their sources. (That's why "freedom of speech" is so confusing to many people, because the "speech" may be opinions or lies just as freely as it may be true.)
So far my best effort at a constructive "solution" is the design of the deep-thinking cap, but it's yet another "morally neutral" tool. While I think I would use the cap to support more deep thinking, maybe I would just use it to sleep a lot. Some people might use it to listen to more loud and mindless music while ignoring other people, even though the cap could be used as a better communication device, too.
Nice theory, but in practice the so-called Republicans have worked hard to politicize the civil service. Rather early to say for #PresidentTweety, but the big dick Cheney was a master of twisting the rules. (Rumsfeld was also pretty good at being bad, but Cheney was the master.) President Obama inherited a federal bureaucracy that had already been twisted and I'm sure the process will only accelerate now.
A few examples? Since it was hard to directly fire people for political reasons, they focused on encouraging the "wrong people" to quit. Obvious methods are by preventing promotions or by assigning them to unpleasant work under unpleasant bosses.
On the hiring side, they focused strongly on getting the right people into the filtering process. Again, the hiring process is supposed to be non-political, but as long as you have a good supply of applicants you're always looking for reasons to eliminate candidates. Much easier when you know what you want, and they did.
P.S. I briefly worked for the federal civil service, but never seriously considered it as a career. Sort of a disclaimer?
Obviously you don't understand where I agree and disagree with you. Not going to waste the keystrokes on it.
So exactly how much money are you prepared to put where your fat fingers are?
Amusingly enough, I actually put a $100 on Sanders before the NY primary, though I regarded Hillary as good enough. Not good enough to get any of my limited money. Ditto TechDirt as things stand. With valuable "supporters" like you, I'm sure they'll be just fine and dandy.
Very constructive thinking. NOT. Seems typical these days.
What are your motivations? Perhaps you voted for the Donald, who promises to make it easier to sue websites out of existence? (Speaking more precisely, I have no personal interest in you, but kind of a vague curiosity why civil dialog dies. If you're a paid troll for Trump, that certainly makes sense.)
So how about the idea of practicing the legal strategies by describing them in sufficient detail so Internet geniuses like you can shoot them to pieces?
Wasting keystrokes. No sincerity detected.
Oh well. Just speaking for myself. Not merely saying why I am unlikely to donate to TechDirt's defense, but trying to offer a constructive suggestion to justify donating some of my limited money. If you are also so rich (to go with your brilliance) that you don't care about the money, then congratulations again.
If not, I'm wagering that I'd be amused by your best attempt to be constructive.
Typo in original: "is to" should have been "us to".
Obviously you are not a lawyer, so I congratulate you on that. In ANY legal action, there are MANY possible approaches. Why don't you want to help pick the best one, especially if some of YOUR money was going to be involved?
Think of it differently, in terms of the wisdom of crowds. If they present three different defense strategies, just seeing which one gets the most sincere support is useful. You can even regard the willingness to donate as a metric of sincerity.
I, too, believe that your cause is just and that you should prevail. If I were filthy rich, I'd even toss you some money on the principle, but... I'm not so rich, so I have to think about what I do with my money.
Hey, here's a funny idea. Why don't you TELL US how you want to use our money?
More concretely, why don't you follow this article with links to some "solution projects", probably projects to fight this stupid lawsuit in this case. The proposals should stand on their own merits and persuade is to donate enough money to fund the budget.
After the project has been completed, hopefully in accord with the schedule and budget included in the proposal, then you can tell us how it went, and maybe even ask us to donate to some more projects, too.
Actually, this is a more general model that could be used for OSS development or broader journalistic or even social purposes.
I really do wish you well, but right now I'd rather have the cup of coffee, and your just cause isn't fungible.
Details available upon request, even though I think they have become intuitively obvious to the most casual observer. Most obviously, the old business models of journalism are dead[, Jim].