Gwiz 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (4547) comment rss

  • On the post: Historical Documentation Of Key Section 230 Cases

    Gwiz ( profile ), 13 Jun, 2019 @ 08:25am

    Re:

    Yeah, out of all of Blue's weird notions, this one is especially weird. He's worried that Section 230 is going to "empower corporations to control ALL speech", but if we eliminate Section 230 (and therefore effectively eliminating all UGC), the only speech remaining will be from corporations and governments.

  • On the post: Republicans Blame CDA 230 For Letting Platforms Censor Too Much; Democrats Blame CDA 230 For Platforms Not Censoring Enough

    Gwiz ( profile ), 10 Jun, 2019 @ 01:39pm

    Re:

    Section 230 allows people to weaponize search engines, and if IP addresses don't prove authorship, or people use a "burner" IP that can't be traced (or are judgment-proof or posting from another country), the target of defamation is defenseless.
    So what? The right of anonymous speech has existed prior to the Constitution of the United States and has been consistently upheld by our courts as a First Amendment right. The one difference between the right to anonymity and other 1A rights is the fact that once you give it up (or it's taken from you) you can never reclaim it. Once again to paraphrase Blackstone: "I'd rather 100 defamation cases go unpunished as opposed to one persons right to anonymity be stripped from them."
    The other problem is that people believe what they read online...
    Yes, some people are gullible and stupid, but that doesn't mean I have to give up my rights because of their shortcomings.
    Section 230 is fatally flawed.
    No, it's not. It's because of Section 230 that we are able to have this discussion in this comment section in the first place because this comment section wouldn't exist without it. Personally, I made the decision to keep my and personal/professional identity and my online identity separate back in the late 90's and have never regretted it.

  • On the post: Prosecutor On Forfeiture Reforms: Making Us Prosecute Drugs Cases Will Make It Harder To Prosecute Drug Cases

    Gwiz ( profile ), 24 May, 2019 @ 12:55pm

    Signed Into Law

    Michigan's legislature is considering adding a conviction requirement for forfeitures under $50,000.

    Governor Whitmer signed this bill on May 9th. It goes into effect on or about January 1, 2020.

    Michiganders beware. Law enforcement will undoubtedly try to pad their budgets for the remainder of this year while they still can.

    https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/michigan/articles/2019-05-09/whitmer-signs-bills-to-limit-asset-forfeiture-in-drug-cases

  • On the post: Laying Out All The Evidence: Shiva Ayyadurai Did Not Invent Email

    Gwiz ( profile ), 23 May, 2019 @ 09:09am

    Re: Shiva Proved Techdirt Can Be Punished

    All the bullshit about Shiva paying Techdirt’s legal bills was proven to be bullshit.
    The only thing that was proven to me is that we desperately need a Federal anti-SLAPP law to stop assholes, like you, from destroying the First Amendment via bullshit defamation lawsuits, like this one.

  • On the post: Prince Harry Uses GDPR To Obtain Payout From Photographer Who Shot Photos Of His Rental Home

    Gwiz ( profile ), 21 May, 2019 @ 11:21am

    Re: If There’s One Way To Describe TechDirt

    Your joking, right?

  • On the post: Vox Admits It Got Section 230 Wrong, Fixes Its Mistake

    Gwiz ( profile ), 16 May, 2019 @ 09:04am

    Re: Re: FRESH Zombie alert! 37 month GAP.

    ...are simply astro-turfing. Inescapable conclusion.
    Geez Blue, hasn't anyone ever told you that you shoudn't run off at the mouth with Occam's razor in your hand?

  • On the post: Vox Admits It Got Section 230 Wrong, Fixes Its Mistake

    Gwiz ( profile ), 16 May, 2019 @ 08:40am

    Re: Re:

    No one should have to answer to lies that appear every time someone Googles their name.
    Right, because throughout it's history the internet has been renowned for it's absolute truthfulness in all things......

  • On the post: Austrian Government Wants To Outlaw Online Anonymity

    Gwiz ( profile ), 01 May, 2019 @ 12:03pm

    Re:

    Your "free speech" doesn't have to be vile.
    That's true, but sometimes some "adult words" are needed to drive a point across to willfully obtuse assholes.
    You wouldn't speak so in person.
    I surely the fuck would.
    You wouldn't tolerate a bar that enforces the orthodoxy of here.
    You don't get out much, do you?
    The Internet is not separate, doesn't need relaxing of rules.
    Nor does it need ADDITIONAL rules, either. I can tell someone that they are a fucking idiot and their notions are as dumb as a box of rocks at a bar, on the sidewalk or in a mall without giving anyone my name, address or any other personal information. Once again, you are claiming that because the internet isn't different than real life it needs special rules and laws. How does that make any sense?

  • On the post: 9th Circuit's Bad AirBnB Decision Threatens Basic Internet Business Models

    Gwiz ( profile ), 28 Mar, 2019 @ 01:00pm

    Re: 230 maximalists will be the death of 230

    Section 230 was not intended to shield platforms from liability for providing tools that allow users to break the law...
    What makes you think that providing tools that are sometimes used to break the law is illegal in the first place? It's not illegal to produce lock picking tools in the US. It's not even illegal to possess such tools. Pretty much all of the laws dealing with "burglary tools" have an element of intent and in order for someone to be convicted of "possession of burglary tools" the government has to show that your intent was to do something illegal with them.

  • On the post: Tell The EU Not To Wreck The Internet

    Gwiz ( profile ), 22 Mar, 2019 @ 11:42am

    Re: Re: Re:

    if a trans person asked for the courtesy of being referred to by a certain name or a certain set of pronouns, you have already said you will not treat them as you would wish to be treated “in a civil society”.
    I guess I should have clarified myself a little on this. I have no problem referring to trans people as "they", "their" or "them" if I have actual knowledge of the person. What I won't do is use a silly made-up pronoun like "ze", "sie", "hir", "co" or "ey", nor will I attempt keep abreast of meanings of those words. If I bump into a person at the mall, my immediate reaction is going to be "Excuse me, ma'me" or "Excuse me, sir" based on my split second examination of how they are presenting themselves to the world. If I am unsure of their gender, I will just say "Excuse me". That's how I was raised. If someone takes offense to an incorrect usage of their preferred pronoun in that situation I'm not going to lose any sleep over it.

  • On the post: Tell The EU Not To Wreck The Internet

    Gwiz ( profile ), 22 Mar, 2019 @ 11:15am

    Re: Re:

    “White nationalist, white supremacist, Western civilization — how did that language become offensive?”.
    Ahh. I was unaware of the whole Steve King thing until I Google it after I made my previous comment. He strikes me as a bigoted fool which is probably why I've never paid much attention to him.

  • On the post: Tell The EU Not To Wreck The Internet

    Gwiz ( profile ), 22 Mar, 2019 @ 06:43am

    Re:

    Ah, yes, the “fuck your feelings” mentality that is most often associated with people who like to say things such as “you need to be cured of the disease that is homosexuality”....
    Ok. Now you are attempting to paint me as homophobic. Stop it, because I am not. I don't care what people do in the privacy of their own bedrooms and I do support gay marriage because I believe that all loving couples should have the same legal benefits regards of orientation. The minister who married me and my wife is a gay man and his long time partner was my tax accountant for years. As a side note: My accountant was also the most politically ultra-conservative person I've ever met. I also believe in a civil society and common courtesy and treating others the way I wish to be treated. I'm not going to go out of my way to be offensive unless I'm in a debate and my intention is to be snarky or offensive. I'm just saying that I am not going to be held responsible for someone else's reaction to my words.  
    “White nationalist, white supremacist, Western civilization — how did that language become offensive?”.
    I don't find the terms "white nationalist" or "white supremacist" in and of themselves to be offensive at all. The groups those terms actually describe I do find highly offensive. The terms themselves are just words. As for "western civilization", I haven't a clue as to why that would be offensive at all, really.

  • On the post: Tell The EU Not To Wreck The Internet

    Gwiz ( profile ), 21 Mar, 2019 @ 05:33pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    You're defending intentionally saying things that you know are going to hurt people because you're too self-centered to consider their feelings when you speak to them.
      Everything anyone says anywhere is going to offend someone somewhere.   Maybe it's just the generation I was raised in, but I don't really care if something I say offends someone. I was raised on "Sticks and stones can break my bones, but words will never hurt me". I took that to mean that how I feel and how I react to words spoken to me are completely and totally my responsibility. Words can only hurt if one allows them to and the only people I grant that power to are those who are the closest to me.   Perhaps I was a bit too cavalier looking for laugh and I apologize for that, but, I'm still not going to be convinced there is a "third gender" that needs it's own bathroom anytime soon. Sorry.

  • On the post: Tell The EU Not To Wreck The Internet

    Gwiz ( profile ), 21 Mar, 2019 @ 02:28pm

    Re:

    You can when you come up with a transphobic joke that isn’t as tired and yawn-inducing as the one you just vomited out.
    I am not transphobic whatsoever. Just a realist. Two sexes are all there is, period. People can self-identify as whatever they want to, I don't care, but I am not going change MY language for them.

  • On the post: PACER, Or Your First Amendment Right To Go Fuck Yourself For $0.10/Page

    Gwiz ( profile ), 21 Mar, 2019 @ 02:11pm

    Re:

    There is also the RECAP project which is working towards freeing documents from PACER one at a time. Just out of curiosity, why would an explosion of pro-se litigation be a bad thing? I don't see a society of people educated on the actual laws that govern them as bad, myself. Ignorance of the law has never been an viable excuse, right?

  • On the post: Tell The EU Not To Wreck The Internet

    Gwiz ( profile ), 21 Mar, 2019 @ 01:45pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What if wrecking the internet is exactly the

    And what is up with people using "you" as an informal second-person pronoun?
    Hey you, stop telling me which pronouns I have to use! Just kidding. I don't really care. Although, I do sometimes self-identify myself as a black Trans Am and prefer my pronoun to be "kitt". Can I get my own public bathroom now?

  • On the post: Tell The EU Not To Wreck The Internet

    Gwiz ( profile ), 21 Mar, 2019 @ 01:19pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What if wrecking the internet is exactly the

    And libel law is just wrong about public figures, they should be more PROTECTED, not more vulnerable.
    I don't want to live in country where it's more difficult to criticize those in power. If you do, move to North Korea. The legal requirement of "actual malice" comes from New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964) which was needed because southern officials were using defamation lawsuits as a means of preventing critical coverage of civil rights issues and it has worked pretty well in curtailing such egregious behavior since then.

  • On the post: PACER, Or Your First Amendment Right To Go Fuck Yourself For $0.10/Page

    Gwiz ( profile ), 21 Mar, 2019 @ 12:48pm

    Re:

    Ok, so now we know that Blue sucks at math as well as English. 20,000 x $0.10 = $2,000.00 and that's a bit more than "hundreds" $200 is only going to get you 2,000 pages, but you are conveniently leaving out the search fees, which are also $0.10 each even for searches with zero results. With a system as sucky as PACER you are most likely going get a lot of zero result searches before you find what you need.

  • On the post: Tell The EU Not To Wreck The Internet

    Gwiz ( profile ), 21 Mar, 2019 @ 10:42am

    Re: Re: Re:

    You believe everyone should share everything, and that laws that protect works of original authors for original authors are evil, right?
    Do you realize that copyright is relatively new (300 years or so) in the context of all human history, right? For thousands of years prior to copyright technological advances were made, music was composed, stories were written and paintings were painted - all with out the benefit of copyright. Personally, I do believe modern copyright is approaching evil status. The original notion of copyright in the US was to give authors exclusive rights FOR A LIMITED TIME so we would produce more works to eventually share with everyone. It was never designed to lock up works in perpetuity as it does now.

  • On the post: Tell The EU Not To Wreck The Internet

    Gwiz ( profile ), 21 Mar, 2019 @ 08:16am

    Re: Re:

    The problem with the lack of gatekeepers (even reviewers are gatekeepers) is that the market winds up flooded with crap without them.
    If you can define "crap" in a way that is acceptable to every single human on the planet then you might actually have an argument here. One man's garbage is another man's art.

Next >>