HotHead 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (223)

• On the post: Court Makes It Clear: Government Submissions To Twitter Flagging Program Do Not Violate The 1st Amendment

  

  HotHead ( profile ), 15 Mar, 2023 @ 07:03pm

  Most people don’t even use Twitter

  A source would've been nice, though this particular claim is probably correct.

• On the post: Court Makes It Clear: Government Submissions To Twitter Flagging Program Do Not Violate The 1st Amendment

  

  HotHead ( profile ), 15 Mar, 2023 @ 06:59pm

  Anyway, that’s not how it works. Pollsters usually weed out people who nothing about the subject at hand.

  This part sounds dubious. That would introduce bias unless the pollsters present the findings both with and without the respondents who supposedly aren't familiar with the subject. The article you linked gives no indication that the researchers weeded out people who weren't familiar with Twitter.

  Regardless, Strawb’s claim was “you’d be part of a minority,” and that has been disproven, regardless of what you think of the opinion in question. (I didn’t ask nor care)

  You are correct about that one claim, but the poll you referenced also doesn't necessarily support an argument that Twitter really did what non-users think it did, and in regards to censorship a court ruling in the opposite direction about a former Twitter user who is a lawyer is evidence that Twitter and the government didn't violate the First Amendment regardless of how the poll respondents define censorship. See page 44 and onward of the key results for the poll questions. From what I could tell the poll didn't define "censorship", so it's unclear whether voters understand that censorship with respect to attempts to remove speech requires coercion or intimidation.

• On the post: Court Makes It Clear: Government Submissions To Twitter Flagging Program Do Not Violate The 1st Amendment

  

  HotHead ( profile ), 15 Mar, 2023 @ 05:53pm

  A source for your comparisons would've been nice. According to Ballotpedia, the Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit 80.4% of time and the Sixth Circuit 81.5% from 2007 until 2022 inclusive - no meaningful difference between just those two. On average the reversal rate was 71.4%. I don't know how conservative or liberal the Circuit Courts are, so I'm not gonna say anything about that yet.

• On the post: Court Makes It Clear: Government Submissions To Twitter Flagging Program Do Not Violate The 1st Amendment

  

  HotHead ( profile ), 15 Mar, 2023 @ 05:33pm

  Great advice, but George Bernard Shaw probably didn't say it. Something similar to the advice was in circulation by 1872, and Cyrus Stuart Ching popularized the advice using slightly different words but attributed it to his uncle or his grandfather.

• On the post: Court Makes It Clear: Government Submissions To Twitter Flagging Program Do Not Violate The 1st Amendment

  

  HotHead ( profile ), 15 Mar, 2023 @ 05:22pm

  Not to take away from the appropriateness of the quote, but Mark Twain probably didn't say it. Yul Brynner or Jean Cocteau said it according to an interview by Hal Boyle. Or maybe the Bible said it first.

• On the post: Can A Robot Lawyer Defend Itself Against Class Action Lawsuit For Unauthorized Practice Of Law

  

  HotHead ( profile ), 14 Mar, 2023 @ 09:38am

  For example, the demand letters DoNotPay drafted for him, and which were to be delivered to the opposing party, never even made it to his intended recipient. Rather, the letters were ultimately returned undelivered to Faridian’s home. Upon opening one of the letters, Faridian found it to be an otherwise-blank piece of paper with his name printed on it. As a result of this delay, his claims may be time-barred.

  The comparatively greater degree of stress for Faridian aside, this reminds me how ICE rejected Mike's FOIA fee waiver request without giving any reason:

  Based on my review of your March 4, 2014 letter and for the reasons stated herein, I have determined that your fee waiver request is deficient because .

• On the post: So Much For The 4th: Ring Allows Cops To Acquire Recordings Of Non-Suspect’s Home And Business

  

  HotHead ( profile ), 13 Mar, 2023 @ 11:06am

  The Third-Party Doctrine, incompatible with the presumption of innocence

  As I said to a different commenter:

  I hope that you are articulating how you think reality is rather than how you think reality should be.

  Most people unavoidably share a large chunk of their lives with third-party providers. It's necessary for work, school, and often daily life. If I use Gmail to store my emails then should I lose my expectation of privacy from government intrusion? If I use cloud storage then should the government be able to see what's in it without a warrant and without telling me immediately after starting to search if not beforehand that they want to look at it? The principle of the presumption of innocence which underlies the 4th Amendment is that if the government is searching my life then they must already have probable cause to believe that I've done something wrong. If there's no probable cause then why should the government be allowed to look at my things in the first place?

• On the post: Protocol-Based Social Media Is Having A Moment As Meta, Medium, Flipboard, And Mozilla All Get On Board

  

  HotHead ( profile ), 13 Mar, 2023 @ 10:26am

  Clarifying my remark about justification

  The purpose of my hypothetical criticism would be not to claim that X people deserve to use that specific website but to call out the website for being intolerant (from my perspective) beyond justification.

  A non-government website which allows user-generated content needs no justification to remove Y viewpoint in the first place, nor does the site need justification to allow Y viewpoint. Regardless, if I support Y viewpoint then I will distrust the managers of a website which removes Y viewpoint.

• On the post: Protocol-Based Social Media Is Having A Moment As Meta, Medium, Flipboard, And Mozilla All Get On Board

  

  HotHead ( profile ), 13 Mar, 2023 @ 10:12am

  It’s like a mob boss saying “take care of it” instead of ordering a hit job. They want to pretend that means they can’t be accountable for ordering a murder, but they still did, and in court it is usually provable.

  This is not the same. The mob boss calls the shots and punishes targets, whether for offending the mob boss or for some arbitrary reason. Neither the Virality Project nor the government threatened Twitter into removing vaccine information. If Twitter calls the shots then there is no government censorship.

• On the post: Protocol-Based Social Media Is Having A Moment As Meta, Medium, Flipboard, And Mozilla All Get On Board

  

  HotHead ( profile ), 13 Mar, 2023 @ 10:05am

  Maybe my personal definitions are not worth using most of the time

  I don't believe in free reach, but hypothetically speaking I would criticize a previously inclusive social media site for adopting a new policy of banning all speech tolerating or supporting X marginalized group. I would call it censorship in my head, but recognize that free speech and property rights protect that kind of decision. The purpose of my hypothetical criticism would be not to claim that X people deserve to use that specific website but to call out the website for being intolerant (from my perspective) beyond justification. The principle matters, but not necessarily the final outcome. I have a preference for starting with broad definitions and adding modifiers (such as private vs. government censorship) to narrow down what I mean. Belatedly, I'm starting to notice that my broad definitions throw trolls and other haters of free speech a bone.

• On the post: Protocol-Based Social Media Is Having A Moment As Meta, Medium, Flipboard, And Mozilla All Get On Board

  

  HotHead ( profile ), 13 Mar, 2023 @ 09:38am

  I really said foreignor intentionally

  I'm embarrassed for getting the spelling of "foreigner" wrong

• On the post: Arkansas: No Need To Age Verify Kids Working In Meat Processing Plants, But We Must Age Verify Kids Online

  

  HotHead ( profile ), 13 Mar, 2023 @ 09:34am

  That is literally the intent & application of such laws. The “Strawman” was on you for pretending otherwise.

  You are right. I was the one who made a strawman fallacy, though not intentionally. I apologize for severely misinterpreting your attitude and for jumping to conclusions about the intent of the law. Even so, my main argument remains standing: removing the age-verification requirement for workers under 16 without considering the type of job is foolish and could be achieved by exempting only certain types of jobs from the requirement without (unintentionally or secretly intentionally) making it easier for Packers Sanitation Services to continue employing 13-year-old kids at meatpacking plants. You can read the law. HB1410 is only two pages long, and most of the second page is crossed out. Nowhere does it mention the supposed intent of the law to streamline employment at restaurants and retail stores. That's careless at best, and carelessness with child labor is suspicious in a state that offers dubious safety by offloading a responsibility of parenting - keeping kids safe from danger on the web - onto the general internet without considering the privacy harms of forced age verification to kids. In short, I held a bad attitude and attacked an argument slightly different from your real argument, but my argument also applies to your real argument.

• On the post: YouTube Updates Its Profanity Policy After Backlash

  

  HotHead ( profile ), 11 Mar, 2023 @ 12:49pm

  Important note about the updated guidelines

  Cursing in the title or thumbnail disqualifies the video for ads:

  Use of any profanity (moderate or stronger profanity) in titles and thumbnails will still be demonetized and cannot run ads, as was the case before the update in November

• On the post: Protocol-Based Social Media Is Having A Moment As Meta, Medium, Flipboard, And Mozilla All Get On Board

  

  HotHead ( profile ), 11 Mar, 2023 @ 10:08am

  I hope you know what recommends means. Where’s the evidence that the government would’ve done something to punish Twitter had Twitter not followed the Virality Project’s recommendations? And if I had to guess, I’d say that the Virality Project agreed with its own recommendations. Give evidence with links. No coercion and no threats means not government censorship.

  Additionally, posts 26 through 40 (the rest appearing unrelated to EIP / Virality Project) don't have evidence that Twitter actually followed through on the Virality Project's recommendations to remove "stories of true vaccine side effects” and “true posts which could fuel hesitancy.” Removing posts for speech and not for conduct is private censorship but not government censorship unless the government coerces or threatens. (How often Twitter removed solely for speech is a separate issue that the thread tells us nothing about.) The buck stops with the party making the decisions. And let's be honest, private censorship is the way websites work. It's just choosing which speech to allow on one's own website i.e. one's own property. That's why defining censorship as only government censorship is okay in most cases. Partisan news organizations and partisan blogs engage in private censorship, but that's just normal behavior, not what people call censorship. What makes social media sites different?

• On the post: Protocol-Based Social Media Is Having A Moment As Meta, Medium, Flipboard, And Mozilla All Get On Board

  

  HotHead ( profile ), 11 Mar, 2023 @ 09:41am

  Thanks for the link and additionally for pointing out the relevant Tweets. But the source doesn't support what you claim it does (emphasis mine):

  In one remarkable email, the Virality Project recommends that multiple platforms take action even against “stories of true vaccine side effects” and “true posts which could fuel hesitancy.”

  Good move? Maybe not. Government involvement? Yes, since the Virality Project was partnering with the government. Government coercion? Going by the Twitter thread, not at all. I hope you know what recommends means. Where's the evidence that the government would've done something to punish Twitter had Twitter not followed the Virality Project's recommendations? And if I had to guess, I'd say that the Virality Project agreed with its own recommendations. Give evidence with links. No coercion and no threats means not government censorship. Anyway, in my previous comment I meant that you took government censorship in decentralized as a given even though one purpose of decentralization protocols is to resist censorship (of the government variety and the private variety).

• On the post: Protocol-Based Social Media Is Having A Moment As Meta, Medium, Flipboard, And Mozilla All Get On Board

  

  HotHead ( profile ), 11 Mar, 2023 @ 09:20am

  Also foreigners still have free speech rights within the US?

  Legally speaking, probably not. But if you believe in free speech as a principle and not as a mere legally granted right to citizens then free speech should apply regardless of the speaker's country of origin and citizenship + residency statuses. And without some level of free speech a foreignor hoping to become a US citizen would be unable to call out government abuse toward the foreignor in the interim (or abuse which prevents the foreignor from being able to finish the process toward citizenship).

• On the post: Arkansas: No Need To Age Verify Kids Working In Meat Processing Plants, But We Must Age Verify Kids Online

  

  HotHead ( profile ), 11 Mar, 2023 @ 09:05am

  Most parents will not: – Let their children visit a park at 2am – Walk alone on the Las Vegas strip – Read an ISIS pamphlet – Play in a homeless tent city – Work a meat packing plant in Arkansas (though apparently, this is now an option, so heads up bad parents – this is where that 3rd income is!)

  I'm guessing that you meant to have "Let their children" apply to all of the bullet points, in which case "Let their children" should follow "Most parents will not" before the bullet points

• On the post: Arkansas: No Need To Age Verify Kids Working In Meat Processing Plants, But We Must Age Verify Kids Online

  

  HotHead ( profile ), 11 Mar, 2023 @ 08:56am

  There's nothing wrong with making it easier for a 15 year old to work at McDs. Which sorta has nothing to do with your scary story about meat-packing plants

  Yeah, even you realize that you said something irrelevant by bringing up McDonald's. Thanks for calling out your own strawman fallacy. Why not require age verification at meatpacking plants while exempting McDonald's? (Though even if working at McDonald's is safer than working at a meatpacking plant, is it safe for middle school kids? I'm concerned about sanitation protocols.)

  Some of those 102 children were in AK meaning…most weren’t? The company, Packers Sanitation Services Inc. , is based in WI. Are you trying to drag Tony Evers into this?

  Have you found evidence that Wisconsin is simultaneously eager to pass a "protect the kids" bill to unconstitutionally require age verification on the internet while trying to prevent age verification of young working minors in plausibly dangerous labor jobs? The point of this article is the hypocrisy of "protect the children" rhetoric.

  You’re trying to conflate two unrelated things to tarnish a republican governor on a story not at related to her because, wait for it — OMG you are so fucking biased and a partisan hack do you even fucking listen yourself.

  Said Governor signed the bill removing age verification for workers under 16 into law, as the article told you. Therefore she supports that bill. Now take an educated guess about whether she, the governor whose party controls the state and supports the bill requiring age verification on the internet, also supports the bill requiring age verification on the internet. Did you guess right? I speculate that Mike did. But that's irrelevant, because Mike wasn't singling out the governor. Reread the article, including the paragraph that mentions the governor. Mike is criticizing the bills, not attacking any particular lawmaker. Both bills would put children in greater harm without comparable benefits. So explain to us again where the tarnishment is. Nowhere.

  Meanwhile, yeah, it’s fine to make it so teenagers have an easier time getting a job bagging groceries or whatever, wtf.

  As I said at the beginning, exemptions would solve this particular problem.

  BTW, MSM barely ever reports on this anymore (“it’s racist!”)

  Fox News is mainstream media ("It is the most-watched cable network in the U.S."), so just say "leftist mainstream media" instead of letting Fox victimize itself for political points.

  it’s nearly guaranteed that a good chunk of the children were illegal immigrants, meaning that there was no documentation on their age and the company was already breaking labor laws which apparently they’re supposed to in this case, I guess?

  Since Republicans control Arkansas, I doubt that most of the Arkansas legislators were trying to protect undocumented immigrants. Did they even think about undocumented immigrants at all? And if you're gonna say "nearly guaranteed" then a source would be nice even though you're not the only one who speculates that the plant had undocumented immigrant minors. Has Fox mentioned it either? (If so, then a link would be nice.) If the mainstream media aren't mentioning something then there is a chance that it's because there's no evidence of it, after all. I think that intentionally protecting undocumented immigrant minors would require changing labor laws in a way most Republicans wouldn't want. Example: let undocumented immigrants work and require age verification of workers under 16 in dangerous jobs (e.g. meatpacking industry), but turn a blind eye when the age verification process reveals which workers and families are undocumented. Meanwhile, don't deport undocumented immigrants until they have committed a violent crime or major civil harm.

• On the post: Protocol-Based Social Media Is Having A Moment As Meta, Medium, Flipboard, And Mozilla All Get On Board

  

  HotHead ( profile ), 10 Mar, 2023 @ 05:01pm

  Government agencies censoring content by proxy is illegal. Government agencies censoring content by a swarm of coordinating proxies? Still fucking illegal.

  "If social media sites are removing/blocking anything then a government must be behind it somehow!" is how you sound right now

• On the post: Devin Nunes Loses Yet Another Of His Frivolous SLAPP Suits Against CNN

  

  HotHead ( profile ), 09 Mar, 2023 @ 02:28pm

  Sorry, I should've double checked David's comment. David said "elephant" and not "horse".

Next >>