James Burkhardt 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (2642)

• On the post: Republicans Want To Make Sure Your Inboxes Are Filled With Spam (Unless The Spam Filters Block Democrats’ Emails)

  

  James Burkhardt ( profile ), 03 May, 2022 @ 10:57am

  Koby loves moving the goalposts and playing calvinball with the basis of his compalints.

• On the post: Republicans Want To Make Sure Your Inboxes Are Filled With Spam (Unless The Spam Filters Block Democrats’ Emails)

  

  James Burkhardt ( profile ), 03 May, 2022 @ 10:56am

  I love how a supporter of this site spends his time sniping at Mike because Mike uses soft language which is effective at preventing people from dismissing his words out of hand, completely undermining that effort for a milimeter of e-peen and the short dopamine hit of meaninglessly dunking on someone.

• On the post: Judge Alsup Dismisses Nearly All Of Alex Berenson Frivolous Lawsuit Against Twitter

  

  James Burkhardt ( profile ), 03 May, 2022 @ 09:17am

  two things - jokes and sarcasm often just sound agressive in text without indications that it is a joke or sarcasm. Secondly, most judges, even when the plaintiff brings up bad faith, find that under c(1), even bad faith moderation is covered and therefore spending the time to consider c(2) bad faith claims results in wasted judicial resources. This is the result of many cases Techdirt has highlighted in the past. The surprise isn't 'bad faith was brought up', the surprise is because 'I did not expect the judge would bother considering c(2) based on the history of section 230 jurisprudence.' Responding 'but the plaintiff brought it up' does not affect the history of jurisprudence because other plaintiffs have brought it up in the past and c(2) was not a factor.

• On the post: Judge Alsup Dismisses Nearly All Of Alex Berenson Frivolous Lawsuit Against Twitter

  

  James Burkhardt ( profile ), 03 May, 2022 @ 09:07am

  Finally? That's been a common refrain from the judiciary over the last few years. Your quote is a citation to a 2020 appellate case. Its very literally not breaking new ground.

• On the post: Marjorie Taylor Greene Has A Bill To Burden Elon Musk’s Twitter With An Avalanche Of Frivolous Lawsuits

  

  James Burkhardt ( profile ), 02 May, 2022 @ 09:21am

  You can still block people directly. And who hired you to decide for every other person in the world what “spam” is?

  No one. The point of existing law is that every site can decide what is and is not spam based on the desires of the owner, informed by feedback from users. A truism of user-generated content (UGC) is some volume of UGC will, inevitably, cross the subjective line for the community and be deemed spam or outside the topic of discussion or hateful or violent or generally unwelcome. Gettr moderating gay and furry porn the community didn't like is just as valid as twitter moderating the guy who posted #HilterWasRight if twitter doesn't like Neo Nazis. (a scenario that Jordan Peterson claims resulted in the pro-Hitler user being banned because of conservative views and Twitter's left wing bias, not the pro-Hitler stance he was actually banned for). The "denying access" argument could be used to require the Furry Porn spam be hosted just as much as it will require hosting the message #HitlerWasRight and the user which posts it. Any exception that allows efforts done in 'good faith' requires a judge to determine good faith, which requires a lawsuit to adjudicate, which means there is no exception that can be relied upon. To avoid lawsuits, they can not rely on a 'good faith' exception. Good Fatih is subjective. The entire argument over moderation right now can be boiled down to Social Media claiming it is acting in good faith in the best interest of profit and shareholders, and politicians on both sides saying they aren't acting in good faith, because what good faith is changes.

• On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt

  

  James Burkhardt ( profile ), 02 May, 2022 @ 08:20am

  Agreed. As I've said in a few ways over the years - my comments aren't for the troll. My comments are there because there is a sub-section of the internet who will see a troll go uncontested and believe there is no counter argument. I provide another perspective not for the troll but for the next reader so they can come to more reasoned conclusions. Way to many far-right hangers on don't understand the arguments at a deep level, they sound good and no one has disputed them. And if that goes on too long they become trapped by belief in rhetoric which poses opposition as censorship. Providing real counter arguments against trolls can help inoculate other readers. At a simple level, its like clowning Koby anytime he tries to claim censorship shows your idea is the 'strongest'". If we let that go, someone will read it, not look at it too closely, and say oh yeah that makes sense. But with 10 replies pointing out that under his definition of censorship Nazis and Stalin have the strongest ideas, you cut his rhetoric off from most readers who want to avoid that comparison. However, on a deeper level, "don't feed the trolls" still has a use. If you engage the troll you need to educate. You need to be willing to explain the same ideas over and over again. Because if all you do is say "nuh-uh!", you feed the troll Massive Weight Gain powder. That next person who doesn't have your knowledge will see the troll as smarter and more knowledgeable. But when you break down their ideas point out the well-known and unsolved issues the troll ignores, you provide groundwork for the next reader to make the right conclusion. When you do that, you feed the troll poison. In the modern day, with a modern understanding of the human nature issues the internet faces, feeding the troll isn't an issue. What you feed them is. Side note: I like refining arguments against a troll because they help close the big holes - genuine pitfalls in rhetoric that would undermine or distract you in a less contentious discussion where changing minds is possible.

• On the post: LA Sheriff Announces Investigation Of Journalist Who Exposed Jail Brutality, Insists Everyone Is Wrong About What He Said

  

  James Burkhardt ( profile ), 29 Apr, 2022 @ 04:03pm

  Traditionally, when someone cites a lawsuit from 5 decades ago, what the lawsuit is about is more important than who was suing who. Doubly so when a quick google would give you a blurb from wikipedia calling it a landmark Supreme Court decision NYT vs USA (1971) is the pentagon papers case. The pentagon papers case established the NYT had the first amendment right to publish leaked classified documents, so long as they committed no crime to obtain them. This article is about the claim of an investigation into a journalist who published leaked material that the government didn’t like and where the government does not even claim she committed a crime. I think there might just be some presidential value in the NYT v US case applicable to the situation.

• On the post: Santa Ana (CA) Council Looking To Ban City Cops From Playing Copyrighted Music While Being Recorded

  

  James Burkhardt ( profile ), 26 Apr, 2022 @ 12:27pm

  Im not sure Disney has much to fear from suing the department for retaining employees committing willful copyright infringement in violation of law and department policy. Its not like Disneyland is in their jurisdiction, and I think in a dick swinging contest the mouse will win out, by buying local politicians if nothing else.

• On the post: Hackers Gained Access To T-Mobile VPNs, Customer Service, And Source Code

  

  James Burkhardt ( profile ), 26 Apr, 2022 @ 09:58am

  Disingenuous to claim that was a quote from Krebs, rather than a quote from an article summarizing more through claims made by krebs.

• On the post: Ways In Which Elon Musk’s Twitter Takeover Could Be Good

  

  James Burkhardt ( profile ), 25 Apr, 2022 @ 12:22pm

  I apologize for being imprecise. is this better?

  “You can’t do electric cars” people said. So he ignored that and invested in Tesla, kicked out the founders and went his own way. It doesn’t matter that he still hasn’t actually figured out building the cars, Tesla was continuing to fail to meet production expectations before COVID need I remind everyone, or that his supposed goal in supporting Tesla, combating climate change, is undermined when they can’t provide a budget car. Nor does it matter that other tech advancements and a shift in public opinion have occurred to help make this successful. He made electric cars work when others couldn’t.

  What effect does that change have on my actual point that Elon Musk doesn't know what he's doing and ignorance is not actually helpful?

• On the post: Ways In Which Elon Musk’s Twitter Takeover Could Be Good

  

  James Burkhardt ( profile ), 25 Apr, 2022 @ 12:10pm

  I think it is important to note that Musk right now thinks that he succeeds by ignoring institutional knowlege. "You can't do electric cars" people said. So he ignored that and made Tesla. It doesn't matter that he still hasn't actually figured out building the cars, Tesla was continuing to fail to meet production expectations before COVID need I remind everyone, or that his supposed goal in building Tesla, combatting climate change, is undermined when they can't provide a budget car. Nor does it matter that other tech advancements and a shift in public opinion have occurred to help make this successful. He made electric cars work when others couldn't. "You can't do reusable rockets!" Well, you couldn't. Again, advancements in microcontrollers and wireless telemetry and AI likely played a significant role in Space X's success, much as technological development played a major role in the smartphone or the tablet finally succeeding. The issue with reusable rockets was practicality. Musk spent billions getting the tech to work, and the savings will take longer than the 15 years of development to see a return. But none of that matters, his vision made it work by ignoring institutional knowledge. He hires straight out of college so the students don't learn what doesn't work from institutional knowledge. The key flaw in his thinking is social media is new. There haven't been the advances neccisary to change fundamentally how we engage with it. The "ignore institutional knowledge" card has been played multiple times in the last 6 years. Institutional knowlege is upset by the world changing while an institution remains stagnant. Twitter might have some cruft as an early implementation, but the institution of social media is far from stagnant. A constant battle for eyeballs that selects for the behaviors that maximize engagement while retaining and growing the userbase. Without some backstop of change to draw upon, there is little for twitter to do to adapt.

• On the post: Why We Can’t Have Nice Things: UK Regulator Dings Clever Ads As Being Too Good

  

  James Burkhardt ( profile ), 25 Apr, 2022 @ 11:43am

  Re: The point

  I can guess that there is no through line between the subject, the quoted material, and the statement made by naughty allie. Furthermore, the comment breaks down to "I don't watch taskmaster", but why that matters to the subject of the article, which is about the UK regulator's reaction to the ads. You would question the point of such a comment because, while nominally on topic, there sits a question of what value such a comment has. It doesn't extend any commentary about the topic or taskmaster itself. It is structured as an antagonistic comment, one readers of techdirt's comments will be familiar with. the "I don't [consume content X], so why is this here". If someone makes an observation, those who didn't grow up with youtube comments assume that observation has some meaning beyond "This exists". "I don't watch taskmaster" holds no meaning aside to indicate "I am ignorant of this topic and therefore have nothing to say." The typical response to someone taking the time to state "I don't watch Taskmaster" would therefore be to wonder what about that fact was important enough to take the time. Naughty Allie then chose to quote the article, quoting sections that link to the content they missed, taking even more effort. Attempting to incorporate the quotes and subject you get "I missed the original articles because I don't watch taskmaster" which doesn't make sense. Perhaps "I ignored those articles because I don't watch Taskmaster" might make sense, but that feedback doesn't help Techdirt produce a better product, nor does it contribute to any discussion about the article, and simply leaves the question "And....?" because they took the effort to post that fact, and you want to understand why that fact was so important as take that effort. An issue of modern internet communication is the willingness to state a fact and not connect why that fact is important. The result was people assuming motivation, to assume the point. And trolls abuse this to become schrodinger's douchebag (HT: Innuendo Studios). The response from reasonable persons has been to request people state why a position matters when you read a negative motivation, rather than assume the negative motivation. Its entirely reasonable to question why Naughty Allie left a comment that they ignored previous Techdirt articles on Taskmaster, What conversation did they want to have by making that statement. Particularly as that type of hallow comment is often used to simply dismiss the article as meaningless by trolls. NA's clear misunderstanding in later comments about the differences between an ad segment and product placement doesn't help that perception.

• On the post: Netflix Pivots From Innovator To Turf Protector As Executives Whine About Password Sharing

  

  James Burkhardt ( profile ), 22 Apr, 2022 @ 11:33am

  Its similar to how the old system would hold comments for moderation, but the trigger is super twitchy and there is no your comment held for moderation splash page. Its caught me a few times where I assume I failed to submit.

• On the post: Netflix Pivots From Innovator To Turf Protector As Executives Whine About Password Sharing

  

  James Burkhardt ( profile ), 22 Apr, 2022 @ 11:31am

  Given his position is in full accordance with the viewpoint of both Techdirt and the general user base, that's a wild claim, and its the second time this week I've seen an AC use this language to assert that a commenter whose comments are in agreement with the Techdirt consensus is actually in opposition and would be in some fashion shut down by the Techdirt reader base. BrentAshley is not targeting Techdirt with his commentary. His title "What is the problem they are proposing to fix?" uses the pronoun 'they'. This indicates he is not talking to Techdirt or the author, for which the pronoun 'you' is appropriate. 'They' indicates one or more third parties to the conversation between Techdirt and BrentAshley occurring in the comments. Which means all of your comments are wildly off base because they make no sense if his questions aren't being directed at Techdirt.

• On the post: Angry Joe Threatens To Sue CBS Over Continued DMCA Claims On ‘Halo’ TV Show Review Videos

  

  James Burkhardt ( profile ), 22 Apr, 2022 @ 08:05am

  You are explicitly wrong. Positive reviews of a video game translate into additional sales. That’s why companies spend millions on review events where they give handpicked, trusted reviewers hands on access to a game only in a controlled environment where they get a free trip with free food and a swag bag, and create a very positive atmosphere. It all influences perception, by making the critics comfortable, they will be more positive about the game. Companies pay bonuses based on reviews. Companies bribe reviewers for good scores. Reviews can make or break niche content, like a video game based tv show on on a 2nd string streaming service. Hell Joe is the only reason i knew a Halo tv show finally got out of development hell. If these creators went away, we’d see the atari or nes days where you had nothing but a blurb in a magazine (or on a storefront) to tell you what to expect. and that would lead right into publishers creating reviewers to ‘help consumers make choices in a crowded market’. Your issue is the conflation of your opinions and those of your circle with the opinion of everyone. And the market shows reviews impact the willingness of consumers to shell out, and the benefit of positive reviews is so high they can manipulate reviews to make a word of mouth flop into an release day sales record.

• On the post: Netflix Pivots From Innovator To Turf Protector As Executives Whine About Password Sharing

  

  James Burkhardt ( profile ), 20 Apr, 2022 @ 12:06pm

  Ah. This chesnut. What Netflix can do legally, and what netflix should do (be that morally, ethically, or fiscally) are not the same thing. Techdirt both argues that social media corporations have the legal right to engage in moderation how they see fit, while simultaneously calling out behavior they see as detrimental, either to the brand or to the bottom line. In this case, while Netflix has the legal right through contract law to restrict password sharing, Techdirt argues that the approach is poorly considered, and such choices have in the past harmed the companies engaging in them. That netflix's choices are likely to accelerate subscriber losses as similar choices accelerated cord-cutting. There is no hypocrisy in the argument that netflix has the contractual right to restrict password sharing but that it is a stupid decision they will likely regret. Though, I imagine you aren't talking about netflix password sharing when you discuss "Social Engineering", so I imagine you were simply wildly off topic.

• On the post: Netflix Pivots From Innovator To Turf Protector As Executives Whine About Password Sharing

  

  James Burkhardt ( profile ), 20 Apr, 2022 @ 12:01pm

  Ah. This chesnut. What Netflix can do legally, and what netflix should do (be that morally, ethically, or fiscally) are not the same thing. Techdirt both argues that social media corporations have the legal right to engage in moderation how they see fit, while simultaneously calling out behavior they see as detrimental, either to the brand or to the bottom line. In this case, while Netflix has the legal right through contract law to restrict password sharing, Techdirt argues that the approach is poorly considered, and such choices have in the past harmed the companies engaging in them. That netflix's choices are likely to accelerate subscriber losses as similar choices accelerated cord-cutting. There is no hypocrisy in the argument that netflix has the contractual right to restrict password sharing but that it is a stupid decision they will likely regret.

• On the post: Netflix Pivots From Innovator To Turf Protector As Executives Whine About Password Sharing

  

  James Burkhardt ( profile ), 20 Apr, 2022 @ 12:00pm

  Ah. This chesnut. What Netflix can do legally, and what netflix should do (be that morally, ethically, or fiscally) are not the same thing. Techdirt both argues that social media corporations have the legal right to engage in moderation how they see fit, while simultaneously calling out behavior they see as detrimental, either to the brand or to the bottom line. In this case, while Netflix has the legal right through contract law to restrict password sharing, Techdirt argues that the approach is poorly considered, and such choices have in the past harmed the companies engaging in them. That netflix's choices are likely to accelerate subscriber losses as similar choices accelerated cord-cutting. There is no hypocrisy in the argument that netflix has the contractual right to restrict password sharing but that it is a stupid decision they will likely regret.

• On the post: Netflix Pivots From Innovator To Turf Protector As Executives Whine About Password Sharing

  

  James Burkhardt ( profile ), 20 Apr, 2022 @ 11:52am

  Is your complaint that I discounted that the board would lie about prospects to investors, or that the board/investors won't fire executives who lied about negative future prospects because they are supposed to lie to maintain the line?

• On the post: Netflix Pivots From Innovator To Turf Protector As Executives Whine About Password Sharing

  

  James Burkhardt ( profile ), 20 Apr, 2022 @ 10:02am

  Misunderstanding the market

  Any executive who thought the momentum from COVID was going to continue, as their growth projections suggested, should be ousted by the board immediately. The CEO claimed that ads were working well for hulu. He ignores that ad-supported hulu costs $3/month for multiple simultaneous streams ($6 if you want to discount ESPN+) when combined with Disney+, the streaming juggernaut that is the 800 lb gorrilla right now. I doubt a struggling Netflix can deliver improved returns if they meet that price point. That said, a $3/month price point for multiple streams could excuse a lot of ads. It certainly did when hulu offered me a year for 1.99/month prior to the disney+ launch.

Next >>