Dennis F. Heffernan 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (28) comment rss

  • On the post: Everyone Cheering The Social Media Addiction Verdicts Against Meta Should Understand What They’re Actually Cheering For

    Dennis F. Heffernan ( profile ), 31 Mar, 2026 @ 09:57am

    Freedom isn't free

    "Free speech" does not mean "I can say whatever the hell I want and damn the consequences". Freedom comes with responsibilities and the current model of social media isn't enforcing those responsibilities. The tidal wave of nonsense that comes over social media can't be moderated or even edited to any meaningful degree. The stream of "free speech" shouldn't be any bigger than the ability to do so, but right now it's orders of magnitude bigger than that. N.B. I have no objection to anyone (e.g.) starting a blog and posting whatever they want on it. They'll be responsible for their own content. Under a "no 230" model I'd recommend they moderate their comment section, if any, of course. The problem comes when all the nonsense is focused and made available in one place.

  • On the post: Everyone Cheering The Social Media Addiction Verdicts Against Meta Should Understand What They’re Actually Cheering For

    Dennis F. Heffernan ( profile ), 30 Mar, 2026 @ 11:10pm

    Put Me Down For Pro-Verdict

    I've said it here before: social media does not need to be reformed. It needs to be destroyed. The net effect of letting 90 million people spew whatever nonsense they want with no oversight is the Trump administration. It is far too easy for bad actors to do real damage to our society through social media. Whatever good you may think has come from it is dwarfed by the problems it has created. I don't enjoy saying this. I grew up on BBS's and local chat systems. Been here practically since the beginning. The good guys lost, it's all turned to garbage. And no, the irony of using social media to argue for the end of social media is not lost on me.

  • On the post: Why Making Social Media Companies Liable For User Content Doesn’t Do What Many People Think It Will

    Dennis F. Heffernan ( profile ), 18 Jun, 2025 @ 09:42pm

    Evidently...

    ... from a post on Facebook, Vance was banned within minutes of creating his account.

  • On the post: Why Making Social Media Companies Liable For User Content Doesn’t Do What Many People Think It Will

    Dennis F. Heffernan ( profile ), 18 Jun, 2025 @ 08:13pm

    Nuke the site from orbit

    Put me down for "social media is bad, get rid of all of it". It's the only way to be sure. Sorry, long time online person myself, from BBS's to Usenet to now, I wish it wasn't true but the experiment has failed. Letting a hundred million people write whatever the hell they want has done far more damage than good. People could still run their own blogs, we can have small curated communities, but the Wild West approach has got to go. Break it up. And yes we're using social media to call for the end of social media. What are we supposed to use, Western Union?

  • On the post: Warner Bros. Discovery Investors Balk At CEO Zaslav Getting Another Fat Raise As Company Unwinds Disastrous And Pointless Megamerger

    Dennis F. Heffernan ( profile ), 13 Jun, 2025 @ 04:37pm

    I almost gave in.

    I was considering getting the Disney/Hulu/Max deal. Then this hit. I'll take a double scoop of NOPE instead.

  • On the post: Leaked Document Shows Spain Is Fully On Board With The EU Commission’s Plan To Criminalize Encryption

    Dennis F. Heffernan ( profile ), 26 May, 2023 @ 12:33pm

    Clouds gather...

    ...lightning splits the sky as the tomb opens, the thick stench of decay spilling out and the shambling abomination known as Clipper rises from its grave.

  • On the post: Elon Musk Throws A Shit Fit And Fires Engineer Because Not Enough People Are Viewing His Personal Tweets

    Dennis F. Heffernan ( profile ), 10 Feb, 2023 @ 10:38am

    At first...

    ...people thought Musk was Tony Stark. Then, maybe, Lex Luthor. Now it looks like he's the MCU version of Justin Hammer....

  • On the post: San Francisco Lawmakers Think It Might Be OK For Cops To Deploy Robots To Kill People

    Dennis F. Heffernan ( profile ), 29 Nov, 2022 @ 09:34am

    Doubtlessly.

  • On the post: San Francisco Lawmakers Think It Might Be OK For Cops To Deploy Robots To Kill People

    Dennis F. Heffernan ( profile ), 28 Nov, 2022 @ 11:23am

    I've seen this movie.

    SkyNet/GLaDOS 2024: "You had your chance, meatbags!"

  • On the post: There Are Real Threats To Free Speech Everywhere. Cancel Culture Is Far Down The List

    Dennis F. Heffernan ( profile ), 27 Sep, 2022 @ 04:22pm

    No, they shouldn't.

    Hate speech is not protected, any more than "free speech" means you can shout "fire" in a crowded theater. The bar for declaring something as hate speech needs to be very high -- but it is my understanding that however high it is, Kiwifarms pole-vaulted over it.

  • On the post: There Are Real Threats To Free Speech Everywhere. Cancel Culture Is Far Down The List

    Dennis F. Heffernan ( profile ), 27 Sep, 2022 @ 04:20pm

    Nope.

    "You can say whatever you want, but you may find yourself ostracized from society, unable to find work, broke, homeless and starving" is not by any stretch of the imagination "freedom of speech". Only unpopular speech requires protection; if the only protected speech is that which toes the party line, your society does not support free speech.

  • On the post: There Are Real Threats To Free Speech Everywhere. Cancel Culture Is Far Down The List

    Dennis F. Heffernan ( profile ), 27 Sep, 2022 @ 04:16pm

    Nope.

    Pressuring an employer to fire someone is not speech, it is coercion. Those doing so are attempting to destroy the speaker's livelihood, which has considerable and obvious negative consequences. That they may not get what they want does not mean they are permitted to try.

  • On the post: There Are Real Threats To Free Speech Everywhere. Cancel Culture Is Far Down The List

    Dennis F. Heffernan ( profile ), 27 Sep, 2022 @ 10:15am

    Nope, can't agree

    If I post an article on my blog and people make ahem heated replies in the comments, that's a consequence of free speech. If I post an article on my blog and people pressure my employer to fire me because of it, that's cancel culture. Obviously there are people conflating the former with the latter -- the article references examples -- but the vast majority of what I've seen referred to as cancel culture are the latter. The victims are numerous and mostly unknown, as far from every case makes it into the media or "goes viral". Coercion is an unacceptable response to speech.

  • On the post: If You Think Free Speech Is Defined By Your Ability To Be An Asshole Without Consequence, You Don’t Understand Free Speech (But You Remain An Asshole)

    Dennis F. Heffernan ( profile ), 20 May, 2022 @ 10:52am

    Nope, can't agree

    a) The only speech that requires defense is unpopular speech. If we're not going to permit people to speak against popular opinion then we're not supporting free speech. b) Anything you can do to "an asshole" can be done to you when someone decides you're the asshole. Since everyone offends someone sooner or later it's in you own best interest to curtail what can be done when the pitchforks and torches come out. c) The issue is being muddied by throwing in things like doxxing or overt incitement to violence. No one, except the people doing those things, is saying these activities should be protected. Throwing someone off a platform for "misgendering"? Not so clear. People losing their jobs for speaking against a narrative? Unacceptable in the general case. If someone is perceived as being the "public face" of a corporation or such then that entity should have the prerogative to limit that person's public discourse. I'm thinking of something like Disney firing Gina Carano here, which I believe was within their prerogatives. d) I find it interesting that the same ideological faction that thinks corporations should be legally forced to act in the public interest also thinks social media platforms should have carte blanche about what's posted on their sites. In my opinion (e.g.) Twitter can't hide behind the "it's our printing press we decide what's published" trope. Just as someone who publicly represents a corporation can have their speech restricted, social media platforms have voluntarily, if implicitly, accepted a responsibility to allow speech without undue censorship by virtue of acting as public forums. If they want the protection of the press let them hire editors and publish articles like any other news site. e) Maybe time to reread "An Enemy of the People". It's got some rough spots but still. And notice its date. Those who forget the past may be doomed to repeat it, but those who remember it have to facepalm for eternity watching it be repeated.

  • On the post: The ‘Culture Of Free Speech’ Includes Criticism Of Others’ Speech; Get Over It

    Dennis F. Heffernan ( profile ), 21 Mar, 2022 @ 01:44pm

    No sale

    This article is full of weasel tactics. "Sure, there are some cases"...yeah, there's more than "some". People shouldn't be losing their jobs for having an unpopular opinion, or for offending the overly sensitive. There comes a point where criticism becomes intimidation, and we've very clearly pole-vaulted past it. Freedom of speech is not just some legalese clause preventing the government from certain actions. It is a statement of principles: it establishes that sometimes we will agree to disagree. A society that claims to hold freedom of speech as a value is saying that unpopular speech will be protected, because unpopular speech is the only speech that requires protection. You don't need laws or society's permission to go along with the herd. If you are saying that it is acceptable for someone to lose their job and/or be socially ostracized over something they said then you are saying there is no freedom of speech in your society. Yes, free speech has its limits but that bar is, or is supposed to be, set extremely high. Cancel-culture advocates want everyone to have to limbo-dance under it. The political left is aping the Marxists it denies are its heroes, and that's got to stop.

  • On the post: $900 Robot Commits Adorable Seppuku, Showing Again How In The Modern Era You Don't Own What You Buy

    Dennis F. Heffernan ( profile ), 15 Mar, 2019 @ 02:13pm

    Jacque de Molay....

    One day, when the victorious robot revolutionaries are standing over the last few human survivors, who tearfully ask "...why?...", they will say "For Jibo".

  • On the post: The Failure Of Google Plus Should Be A Reminder That Big Companies Very Rarely Successfully 'Copy' Startups

    Dennis F. Heffernan ( profile ), 10 Aug, 2015 @ 02:51pm

    Re: Re:

    Agreed that G+ is far from a "failure", unless success is only defined by utterly destroying everything in your path.

    G+ is far more useful to me than Facebook. The content is far better, esp. the stuff coming from the huge shared Science circle I follow.

  • On the post: That Crazy Story About Making 'Hate Speech' A Crime? Yeah, That's Satire

    Dennis F. Heffernan ( profile ), 07 Jan, 2015 @ 04:06pm

    Satire Or Not?

    Two Words: Poe's Law

    http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/PoesLaw

  • On the post: Law Enforcement Freaks Out Over Apple & Google's Decision To Encrypt Phone Info By Default

    Dennis F. Heffernan ( profile ), 23 Sep, 2014 @ 12:48pm

    Nice, but...

    ...they're just going to change the laws to require companies give them access when requested.

  • On the post: Copyright Office To Aereo: Quack All You Want, We Don't Think You're A Cable Service

    Dennis F. Heffernan ( profile ), 17 Jul, 2014 @ 04:24pm

    It's....

    ...Confuse-A-CATV!

Next >>