Ehud Gavron 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (1631) comment rss

  • On the post: Madison Square Garden’s Facial Recognition Tech Boots Lawyers Litigating Against The Venue

    Ehud Gavron ( profile ), 27 Dec, 2022 @ 03:36pm

    The Thomas Crown Affair

    Thank you, That Anonymous Coward.

    Imagine securities response when 15 of the same lawyer walk in different doors.
    I appreciate your help in deciding what tonight's movie night will be. Thomas Crown (remake with Brosnan) it is. Security is a theater. TSA makes it not entertaining. Hollywood makes it better. Thanks for the reminder! E

  • On the post: Madison Square Garden’s Facial Recognition Tech Boots Lawyers Litigating Against The Venue

    Ehud Gavron ( profile ), 26 Dec, 2022 @ 05:23pm

    Florida GOP ban

    I'm all in favor of Disney properties AND ANYONE banning the dipshits from their property. I like the way you think and wish to subscribe to your newsletter. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wlMwc1c0HRQ&ab_channel=NickKing E

  • On the post: Madison Square Garden’s Facial Recognition Tech Boots Lawyers Litigating Against The Venue

    Ehud Gavron ( profile ), 26 Dec, 2022 @ 01:19pm

    Why go where you're not wanted?

    Frankcox said it really really well:

    I don’t understand why anyone would want to go somewhere they are not wanted. There are lots of places to go where they will be happy to see you and take your money. Go there instead.
    There is a bit of a failure on MSG's part to allow ticket sales to the unwanted, and not to warn the unwanted they will be turned away. That's not fair, but it's not unlawful. There is the right of any property owner (and some managers) to restrict the access or use of that property. For easy example, you are welcome to not come to my door, enter my house, and sleep in my bed, no matter what ticket you hold. My house. My rules. MSG has an equal right. They use a technology that has Type-I and Type-II errors. Welcome to reality-land. ALL tech has result errors. That's why Boeing, SpaceX, and others use multiple redundant systems... so that one error not seen in other systems, can be excluded from the resultant event. This is also why Tesla's non-redundant system will be re-engineered or dead. Facial recog - whatever. Ejecting lawyers - sure. MSG's right to restrict access - sure. I'm not quite sure where "the problem here" is. To me, and yes I am a civil libertarian, I believe I get to restrict who gets to enter my property. I get to choose the tools to help me do that. I know they're less than perfect and I'm okay with that. Where's the story?

  • On the post: UK IP Office Tries To Claim Netflix Password Sharing Is Illegal

    Ehud Gavron ( profile ), 26 Dec, 2022 @ 09:07am

    Pirates

    Pirates habit the seas and TAKE STUFF FROM its owners and its owners no longer have them. That's not what happens here. What happens here is SHARING. Netflix password sharing is no different than sharing my guest room, car, or food. I have an AWS cloud with several VPSs spun up. Those are available to any of my friends that want access to a VPS. Am I not allowed to share? Fuck them. I have a house. There is a guest room. If a family member or friend needs a place to stay, it's right here. FUCK Netflix, and FUCK the slow small useless side of The Pond, and may they pass all the laws they want.

    • I will still share my Netflix password.
    • I will still share my AWS credentials.
    • I will still share my other credentials.
    They can come file suit against me. In US courts they'll have to show damages to collect. I'll have to show that they had no right to sue me. Best of luck Netflix, and fuck you and your UK lapdogs.

  • On the post: Chicago PD Is A Fan Of Encryption, As Long As It Means Keeping Info Out Of The Public’s Hands

    Ehud Gavron ( profile ), 22 Dec, 2022 @ 01:24am

    Transparency vs Security or other Boogeymen

    The right to represent your viewpoint in these United States includes the right to do so in whatever mode you wish, be it clear-speech, dog-whistle, numeric codes, nicknames, etc. The police, never satisfied with killing us and harming us now want to remove our right of free expression. This isn't new. PGP had to be stored outside the US because exporting it was disallowed. That's likely as lawful as "banning Tik-Tok" in the CONUS. In 1991 the "Clipper Chip" was meant to provide broken encryption with a government back door, and mandate its use for all encryption. Grass-roots lobbying (real grass-roots, not police union astroturfs) made that go away. Since 1908 the FBI has had almost 300 years of investigating crime -- before they decided they are anti-terrorist-forces and anyone with a mental deficiency can be talked into being a terrorist. In those almost 300 years, cellphones have only existed for less than 50 years and yet somehow without examining ALL CELLPHONES law enforcement seems to believe it will "go dark" on their ability to... um... investigate crimes. Any tools used to make our information secure, be it SSL, HTTPS, etc. is seen as evil -- but perfectly ok for LEOs to use to protect THEM from US. It's time to focus on how "all of us" became "THEM vs US." Specifically:

    That’s not how public service is supposed to work. The public comes first. Those who serve the public are expected to absorb the risks to ensure the public remains the priority. But that’s not what’s happening here. And this clumsy, one-sided embrace of encrypted communications shows what the city thinks about the people who sign its paychecks.
    The public doesn't come first. That's why QI is a thing. The standard of the law is one thing for people in the US - obey the law - and another thing for cops - "Obey they law unless you disobey it but you thought it may be ok and there wasn't a specific pre-existing adjudged case of which you were aware that said something else". Cops don't want to absorb any risks. That "thin blue skin" wants to work in perfect safety, only for 20 years, and retire to a life of luxury, thanks to police-union negotiated contracts that provide a lifetime of carefree fun for 20 years of service.
    Those who serve the public...
    The cops don't serve the public. They serve themselves, usually by cutting to the front of the food line, taking more than their fair share, and then saying "Oh I didn't know, so give me QI." The entire system isn't just a loose hodgepodge of racist gangbanger cops in LA or homeless-people-killing cops in ABQ or racist cops killing George Floyd in MSP, etc. These are not outlander examples. These are a sample of the everyday life where the Thin Blue Skin kills, rapes, harms, and fails to protect the people they have sworn to do so. The unions work hard to ensure this system stays. The politicians turn a blind eye. The end result is cops do what they want with impunity but the rest of us go to jail or prison or death. ENCRYPTION. If I want to yell "Fire in a crowded theater"[sic] I sure can. If I want to yell 2397237923797329379237 I sure can. However, the anti-encryption crowd says that if that long-ass number is the message "in an encrypted format" then I can't say it, and any tools that might help me to do so should be unlawful to use or possess. ENCRYPTION is a first-amendment right. I get the right to express myself in whatever language I use, and if it's en-claire or ROT13 or any substitution cipher the "tool" could be a piece of paper. Is that to be outlawed if there are two columns on it? What if I obfuscate it as a narrative... is that steganography? Is steganography unlawful? Would it be? If the police could make it unlawful IT WOULD BE. ENCRYPTION is when the MAGAs say "Let's go, Brandon" but they mean something different. Is that going to be unlawful... particularly when police forces are predominantly anti-Biden, have gang affiliations, anti-Democrat leans, bent star tips, etc? ENRYPTION is when George Floyd was "resisting arrest" by not dying quickly enough, and none shall tell a different narrative. I'll continue to encrypt my data. That includes FDE for my systems, in-transit encryption (SSL) for data in-transit, and encrypted cloud storage for end-system storage. I don't believe any magistrate has the authority to REQUIRE me to RESTATE a message I chose to say in "Encrypted language" in "En-Clair language" and will not provide either that message in the clear nor a translation token (key, passphrase, etc.) That's also why I'm not a fan of Yubi-Key or any mechanism that makes the decryptor's job easier. If I wanted the communication to be in the clear, I'd have chosen that mechanism. -night- E

  • On the post: Thursday Night Purge: Elon Musk’s Twitter Bans Tons Of High Profile Journalists

    Ehud Gavron ( profile ), 15 Dec, 2022 @ 08:47pm

    attention whores

    It's his toy. He bought it. He can take it and go home. The more attention anyone gives him the more he does to get more. When the schoolyard bully takes his ball and goes home we don't chase after him and say "Oh come on plllleeease let us play." We find someone nicer to play with. Fuck Elon.

  • On the post: Security Researcher: Recent CFAA Changes Won’t Keep Researchers From Being Prosecuted

    Ehud Gavron ( profile ), 08 Dec, 2022 @ 01:50pm

    Safe Harbor

    The concept of safe harbor is great. In implementation it is merely a stepping stone to a ban. POLs: We want to ban this thing. Brains: We can't ban this thing. POLs: How about if we ban everything all around it, but carve out a safe harbor for this thing. Then nobody will argue we can't ban this thing? Brains: Sounds good [Implement anything include CDA §230, FOSTA, SEXTA, CFAAlite, etc.] ...queue the time-passes music... POLs: Ok it's been some time now and there are people who shouldn't have safe harbor. Brains: Once we start limiting those, it's a slippery slope to no safe harbor and we're back to that ban we shouldn't do. POLs: We'll just take it one step at a time. Brains: You are sounding like a self-justifying r***** now. POLs: We'll just wait and see. Queue the music as safe-harbor provisions are watered down for this party or that party or this act or that act... until there are no safe harbors. The POLs will give speeches. The DoJs will pursue charges. The DAs will follow suit (no pun intended) and the end results is the erosion of our rights. Nothing to see here. Safe Harbors don't exist. Not for ships and not for CDA and not for CFAA and not for KDC/MAFIAA and not for Assange. Free speech? See above. E

  • On the post: Media Organizations Ask US To Drop Charges Against Assange

    Ehud Gavron ( profile ), 06 Dec, 2022 @ 09:41am

    RICO

    I wrote:

    I know… I know… it’s not RICO.
    You wrote:
    Don’t call it RICO. Its not RICO
    I. Will. Use. Small. Words. So. You. Get. It. I said: It. Is. Not RICO. It is amazing that of everything I posted you took the one thing I made crystal clear, and inverted it 180°. The older I get the more I see morons showing creativity on a whole new level. Oh, sorry, mentally challenged idiots.

  • On the post: Media Organizations Ask US To Drop Charges Against Assange

    Ehud Gavron ( profile ), 06 Dec, 2022 @ 09:29am

    The Law

    This started as a discussion about Mr. Assange. I brought in other people to show how the US Government demonizes INDIVIDUALS rather than the ENTITIES, usually unlawfully as per US law, and usually with nobody saying "Wait, that's not how any of this works." My concluding paragraph summarizes my thoughts to that topic - Assange, Wikileaks, USG overreach, etc. To the extent we diverge, I only disagree with the pretense that a person and a business (not a legal term) are the same. Read on if you like. PaulT-I've made it a point to say this is all US law. If you'd like to chime in and share a different perspective I invite/welcome that.

    No defense to the above poster but the law does have a concept that a person and a business are so intertwined as to be the same thing.
    Yes, the law does say that exactly, Shaggy. That's why you and Scooby can have marijuana snacks until you're high as a kite and then go drive the Mystery Machine (aka van) and nobody thinks that DWI/DUI/drug-running across borders. In the real world, however, there's no such thing. At least not in the United States. This was not a difficult Google search but the responses are clear: https://www.google.com/search?q=person+and+business+intertwined&oq=person+and+business+intertwined So -- quick summary for the mentally challenged or whatever your mom calls you before she shuts off the computer: Business [not a US legal term] and people are NOT intertwined. "The Law" in the US says no such thing; there is no precedent for such a thing; there is no requirement that either owning some percentage of a corporation's stock or being employed to run it (e.g. as CEO, President, Board Director, etc.) places requirements upon a person to be LIABLE for what the CORPORATION (or other entity) does.
    So
    Starting a sentence with "So" would build upon the false conclusion of the mistake of the previous assertion. Premise rejection. Not "So".
    its[sic] at least possible to equate the actions of a business to its officers. KDC obviously got railroaded given his own country said so in the attempts to move him to the US. So the US has treated him and the business as the same.
    It's possible to do lots of things, but equating businesses with officers isn't lawful in the US. The railroading part is correct, and the US violating the law to get there is also correct. All of this is imho unjust but the USG didn't contact me to get the signoff before starting yet another power-move to exact vengeance on anything that hurts their political contributions. "Big Tech" is not a thing. "Big Content" IS a thing and they pay politicians, and now they're getting the work product they paid for. What's shameful is the USG, not KDC.
    Of course
    Paragraph 1: BS Paragraph 2: "SO, [based on BS made up in para 1]", more BS Paragraph 3: "Of course [conclusion made to summarize all that BS]" with no reason, standing, substance, or legal justification. No, not "Of course".
    the correct way to handle all of this craziness
    I'm not sure when you were appointed Correctness Czar nor your psychological degrees to remotely assess "craziness", Goldwater Doctrine aside, but I'll meet you halfway. The LEGALLY CORRECT way to address this issue could be...
    would have been to go after Mega, not its officers,
    US Law allows "to go after" (you mean "file charges", right?) both.
    then show that KDC was so financially integrated as to be one and the same. Nothing in this case was done correctly and it shows.
    Again the US law doesn't show this concept of "financially integrated." Summary: Outside of Scooby Doo, there is no "the law." In this case choice of venue, jurisdiction, and law would be borne by circumstance and I'm honestly not sure where between DE and NZ that is, but I'm pretty certain it's not US. If "personal jurisdiction" really meant what various little sheriffs in Texas think, then EVERYONE IN THE WHOLE WORLD would be subject to it because they COULD access data. That includes people on the ISS, China's space station, etc. Nonsense by legal standards and precedence in the US. An entity (you used the term company, but that is NOT an entity in US law) has its own real authority and can be a subject of legal charges, damages, etc. Apple and Google and Microsoft and Adobe and many other CORPORATIONS have been charged, found liable, and paid. This case isn't strikingly different in that aspect IMHO, except that these companies DO BUSINESS IN and HAVE EMPLOYEES IN and HAVE OFFICES IN the countries whose laws they apparently violated. Neither Assange (original topic) nor KDC (your guy) nor Noriega nor others listed here DO BUSINESS in the US, have EMPLOYEES in the US, or OFFICES. But then we could also say "Al Jazeera" and does the USG get to put their (Qatari) owners in prison? The Entity's operators, be they CEO, President, etc. can also be charged, but that (under US law) is more difficult because in their ROLE of their JOB there are things they do that even though would be against US law are palatable. Example for the lazy unable-to-Google: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-116hhrg43010/html/CHRG-116hhrg43010.htm As a member of the board of directors of various entities, when I perform my duties in furtherance of that entity's goals -- which for public corporations focusing on "growth" is the rise in stock value to shareholders... I am not liable to be sued under US law, and if an overzealous piece of shit authoritarian MoFo government idiot like the US sues me, the entity will defend me at their expense. Finally, shareholders are never responsible. I own shares of stock in several of the companies mentioned in this response, and I have ZERO responsibility to their actions. Really the US Government, acting at the behest of BIG MEDIA F'd this up royally and still can't make it stick. I'm back to talking about the topic, that being Julian Assange, not Kim Schmitz. The similarities between the two and the other men I've mentioned is uncanny. It's a big stupid bully butting his fat stupid ass in a place he wasn't invited to to lord around his lack of authority as if he had any, and recounting his resume for anyone who will listen. "Back in '31 there was this guy, but we changed the law, and got him good, and the world never heard of Al Capone again because TAX CHARGES." Have a great day. E

  • On the post: Media Organizations Ask US To Drop Charges Against Assange

    Ehud Gavron ( profile ), 06 Dec, 2022 @ 01:08am

    So much insight so much bullshit

    Lawyer are paid for work by the hour. Writers are being paid by the word. I decline to suggest your work product qualifies for payment under either standard. You can asset what you like about Mr. Schmidt's contracts with e.g. Carpathia, AWS, etc., but none of them subject him to jurisdiction in the US. I know this confuses you so focus on "him" being KDC and whether KDC is subject to US law because a CORPORATION he was an OFFICER of used a THIRD PARTY to secure SERVERS in a JURISDICTION. I've used capital letters so you can stop the bs and focus on the facts. Jeff Bezos is not Amazon. Elon Musk is not Tesla. Donald Trump ... got nothing there for ya. To be personally brought forth in personal jurisdiction (and I'll spare you the Latin so you can go copy and paste elsewhere) requires much more contact than a corporation officer having his company using the services of a party that provides such services in that jurisdiction. Here's where we pause, and agree to disagree. Spout off all you like, but you're wrong as a matter of law, and that's why even his extradition (99% unrelated) hasn't worked in a decade, and should he be extradited (he will, because the governments are corrupt, and that is the point of this thread) there will still be that fault. The USG had no jurisdiction to put Noriega in a US prison. Same for El Chapo. Same for Assange. Same for KDC. It's getting to sleeptime here, so I'll just end with: - I am not a fan of any of the above. I have respect for some of the things Assange and KDC did. - I am not fan of how the USG can utterly destroy a life (finance+liberty) of an individual that has never been in the US, conducted business her, etc. (Save my your tears that he owned shares in a corporation that used a vendor that used servers in the US. The nexus just isn't there no matter how you slice it.) - It's not about ME or what I'm a fan of. It's about JUSTICE and the LAW and its FAIR APPLICATION. I don't think those people go that FAIR APPLICATION. Perhaps we could agree on that. Eigy Pokr Off.

  • On the post: Media Organizations Ask US To Drop Charges Against Assange

    Ehud Gavron ( profile ), 05 Dec, 2022 @ 08:30pm

    I don't teach grandma anything. She's dead. Thanks for ensuring relevancy.

    I have no intention to debate this given that neither of us are in a court nor represent either side. MLATs don't change anything. He has no assets in the US. As to "Well it wasn't AWS and how dare you bring up AWS, let's summarize. You said:

    "Because of that it was considered to be operating in the US and the Netherlands..."
    "It was considered" is a cheap excuse. WHO "considered" something to be operating on two separate continents, exactly? Oh, governments wanting to charge him. Gog it. Gong. Buzzer.
    MegaUpload was a website...
    No, websites aren't entities and can't get sued. You know about MLATs (good job Mike for explaining that to morons everywhere) but you think a website can be sued, and "is considered" to be an entity in multiple continents. I've made my point. You've attempted to reply. Good on you for saying you get private mail from Mr Schmitz. When I want your resume, I'll be sure to look back here. All the positions are filled.

  • On the post: Media Organizations Ask US To Drop Charges Against Assange

    Ehud Gavron ( profile ), 05 Dec, 2022 @ 05:03pm

    Where your servers be at n' stuff

    I have servers all over the world. These exist because the vendors I use (Goog, AWS, not Azure and not Oracle) have geodiverse datacenters all over the world.

    There were literally assets in the federal district – the servers that physically committed the acts charged were there.
    As said, those are Carpathia Hosting's servers, not Schmitz's servers. That he made use of them is how things are done but it doesn't expose little Suzy to China's laws because Suzie's dad put Suzies pictures on an FB server that was in TW. If you want to argue the law, which it seems this suggest you do:
    Except that's a lie,
    No, just because you say it is doesn't make it so. It's not a lie. Schmitz has no assets in the US. A 3rd party VPS isn't an asset.
    ...as Kim well knows.
    Happy to know you're on a first-name basis with him. That MUST be how YOU know what HE "well knows." I know it's difficult to read but here's an article and the "assets" are not in the US. https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/06/feds-ask-supreme-court-to-uphold-seizure-of-kim-dotcoms-millions/ Happy Monday.

  • On the post: Media Organizations Ask US To Drop Charges Against Assange

    Ehud Gavron ( profile ), 05 Dec, 2022 @ 03:45pm

    Douche

    Mr. Assange did some good for the global community by making information as free as it needed to be. That he did so at the behest/urging/support of blackhat players is unfortunate/wrong/stupid. Whether or not it was stupid etc. doesn't change that it was LEGAL, it was JOURNALISM, and our nazi-loving Trump administration decided that was worth bringing espionage charges against him. That's just as fair as seizing a foreign national's assets, raiding his house, incarcerating him, all for a non-crime he never committed on US soil. Kim Schmitz (aka Dotcom) is still fighting that one... at his own expense... while the US sits on all his money. Think what you will of the guy, but he'll end up like Manuel Noriega, another man who never set foot inside this country and yet was brought to it to be tried like a dog in a court that had no jurisdiction over Panama, and to rot in prison. Media organizations, Big Content, and the US Government are all big pieces of shit in a conspiracy. I know... I know... it's not RICO. It doesn't have to have everyone coordinating their crap for it to be a conspiracy, because that's HOW THEY STRUCTURED THE LAW so they could do this with impunity.

  • On the post: If Twitter Goes Down In Flames, What Happens To Its Huge And Historically Important Collection Of Tweets?

    Ehud Gavron ( profile ), 01 Dec, 2022 @ 02:44am

    Suicide for losers

    Brothuh, you took that way way way out of perspective. I didn't wish you death, suggest that you die, nor encourage suicide. Being a member of society (or not) doesn't entail ritual death if one cannot be a member of that society.

    Please don’t EVER hint that. ...
    Yeah, so first, I didn't "hint" at anything like that, and secondly I have the right to speak my mind -- same as you do -- and lastly when you're my commanding officer you come tell me what I "Don't EVER" do again. Until that time try reading the text... not "between the lines" but the actual text. Sorry you're unable to sign a real name or a unique identifier. You're a nuisance troll because all "Anonymous Cowards" are indistinguishable. Please don't go kill yourself. <--- clear enough? E

  • On the post: If Twitter Goes Down In Flames, What Happens To Its Huge And Historically Important Collection Of Tweets?

    Ehud Gavron ( profile ), 01 Dec, 2022 @ 02:39am

    Anonymous Coward I and We stuff

    I’ve mentioned time and again...
    Everyone who is anonymous is listed as "Anonymous Coward." You indicate you fear reprisal from SG. Understood. However, unless you substantiate your "Anonymous Coward" from the many other such people, you're just all the same. I'll save the lecture as to how you can remain anonymous on this forum that SG monitors daily to come arrest you, and yet still maintain an individual identity (or like a moron above claim to be a "we" collective). That's up to you. In becoming a citizen of the United States there were decisions I had to make. One of those is that I will not hide who I am. You are welcome to find some middle ground that is distinguishing yet not identifying. E

  • On the post: If Twitter Goes Down In Flames, What Happens To Its Huge And Historically Important Collection Of Tweets?

    Ehud Gavron ( profile ), 30 Nov, 2022 @ 07:28pm

    Dipshits speak and yet they are not mute -- just dumb.

    While we appreciate the tone policing,
    You are an anonymous coward. There is no "we" there. You're as far from a "we" as you can get.
    we’re not calling Mr. Gavron unable to speak,
    No, you're not a we, and what you "call" or not call is of no concern to the rest of the collective "you" that isn't a "we".
    but his views as not rooted in any percievable reality. Or evidence. Or history.
    Thank you for your baseless evidence-free reality-proof opinion of my "percievable[sic]" reality. Goldwater Rule. Next time you want to judge my percievable[sic] whatever, have the goodness of actually communicating. Judgment is not for anonymous cowards who think they're a "we." We say so and we sign our names so. Back to your homework and give mommy back her laptop.

  • On the post: If Twitter Goes Down In Flames, What Happens To Its Huge And Historically Important Collection Of Tweets?

    Ehud Gavron ( profile ), 30 Nov, 2022 @ 03:15pm

    Unhealthy society

    It’s true that I live in an unhealthy society....
    No, society is what all of us live in. If YOU don't like it that doesn't make the other 99.999% "unhealthy". It just means this is not the society for you to be in. Bye now. As in, go somewhere else. This society does have its flaws, but it IS THE SOCIETY WE LIVE IN. Unlike you, who are leaving. Don't let the door hit you in the brain on your way out.

  • On the post: If Twitter Goes Down In Flames, What Happens To Its Huge And Historically Important Collection Of Tweets?

    Ehud Gavron ( profile ), 30 Nov, 2022 @ 03:08pm

    It’s okay, though

    Thanks for addressing me directly, nobody

    Again, Mr. Gavron.
    When one day you're my commanding officer you can say "Again" but until then you're a dick without balls to sign his own name.
    .You are the final arbiter of what’s considered culturally relevant, and totally not a product of a capitalistic culture that values throwing away junk thats not useful to the economic machine…
    Sure thing, Jellybean. Now let mommy and daddy use the computer "again". E

  • On the post: If Twitter Goes Down In Flames, What Happens To Its Huge And Historically Important Collection Of Tweets?

    Ehud Gavron ( profile ), 30 Nov, 2022 @ 08:08am

    Ordinary life isn't archival material

    For example, there are all kinds of photographs and portraits of important historical figures, but comparatively few streetscapes of ordinary life.
    Nobody writes a book about how to go to sleep, wake up, shower, shave, brush teeth, eat, go to work, come home, watch news, eat, rinse, repeat. History is about historically significant events. Twitter isn't that repository anyone looks for now nor will anyone in the future care either. Tom from Myspace agrees. So does Steve "You've got mail" Case. Nobody cares. Twitter is not a storehouse and its content is ephemeral garbage, much like what's between Florida Man's orange ears. E

  • On the post: If Twitter Goes Down In Flames, What Happens To Its Huge And Historically Important Collection Of Tweets?

    Ehud Gavron ( profile ), 29 Nov, 2022 @ 07:51pm

    Smoking the Canadian weed again.

    What Happens To Its Huge And Historically Important Collection Of Tweets
    Begged question. Nothing historically important is in a privately held free and non-backed-up database of short messages. NOTHING. It's not historically important because it's not in any way indicative of anything other than a general "mood" or malaise of the populace. No public or governmental rulings are released on Twitter. Twitter is not a "repository" in any way, shape, or form of anything other than ephemeral thoughts. SO,
    What Happens To Its Huge And Historically Important Collection Of Tweets
    What happens? It's what happens. It's not historically anything let alone important. If you feelz differently please prove what you assert. Good luck with making a public toilet appear to be the holy bible. [or whatever book you prefer.]

Next >>