jilocasin’s Techdirt Profile


About jilocasin

jilocasin’s Comments comment rss

  • Aug 10th, 2020 @ 2:06pm

    Short sighted monopolists, what do you expect?

    Uggg... more short sighted monopolists.

    Unfortunately this is what you get when the people that own the studios try to get into the streaming space. They can't seem to help themselves trying to use their control over content (and internet access for those that are also ISPs) to illegally to give themselves an unfair advantage in the marketplace.

    If they wanted to strive for the loyalty and long term security of the sector, they would be licensing their content to as many services as possible. Let various streaming companies (Netflix, Hulu, Apple, etc) compete for the best service, interface, options and let the market decide. It wouldn't matter who won as they would get licensing revenue from everyone. As it is we have streaming providers like Netflix and Amazon forced into creating their own content, since the companies that produce third party content can't be counted on not to pull it and try setting up their own streaming service. Unfortunately most of these Netflix wannabees don't have the breadth of content to support their own service. Seriously, subscribe to CBS All Access just for Star Trek: Discovery?

    In the end I fear it's just going to be another case of copyright holders overvaluing their content in regards to the platforms, and the user experience that delivers them. We'll see less and less mainstream content on legal streaming services, instead people will go outside the system to acquire it.

    The successful companies will be those that provide the most value and the widest range of content under one roof.

  • Aug 5th, 2020 @ 7:38am

    Re: Re: [ Call your Senator]

    The best thing you can do at the moment is to call your Senator.

    • Let them know that you are aware of this bill.
    • Let them know that you know just what a dumpster fire it is.
    • Let them know that you know that Graham is trying to hotline it.
    • Let them know that you expect them to show some backbone and join Senator Wyden in putting a hold on it.

    They are counting on their constituents not even knowing about this bill, and if they do, not really caring.

    (I do and I have)

  • Aug 3rd, 2020 @ 9:59am

    Re: Re: The Executive branch violating the law

    I think you can be fairly certain that:

    1) there will be an election. (see congress and states), otherwise when his term ends, Nancy Pelosi would be president.

    2) that would be the best result, but the republicans could also loose control of the senate effectively removing him from office for any of the vast number of impeachable offenses.

    3) whether or not Trump chooses to leave is completely immaterial. On Jan. 20, 2021 at 12:00 EST Trump is not longer the president. He's just an old self centered trespasser in the white house. Anyone from the Marine contingent, to the secret service, to capitol police will forcibly remove him and his family from the building.

    4) See #3 above. What you are proposing is a coup d'état. The active duty military won't even support his attempts to attack protesters (hence the need for the DHS, ICE, prison guard, and whom ever else they can round up to staff their cammo clad thugs), Do you really think that they would go against their oath to:

    ...support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic;...

    Any order from the president that goes against the constitution would be an illegal order placing the president firmly in the category enemies, domestic.
    Our servicemen and women have infinitely more integrity the either the current president or those republican enablers in the senate.

    As for #5, hopefully the US will have learned a very hard and painful lesson about electing narcissistic despot wannabees. One that isn't soon forgotten.

  • Aug 3rd, 2020 @ 9:37am

    Re: The Executive branch violating the law

    Not quite. This president was not acquitted of impeachment, he was in fact impeached. There's nothing he nor the republican party can do about it at this point.

    What happened was that the senate, held a farcical trial, one in which many of the impartial republican senators had not only already made of their mind not to remove him from office, but bragged about it on national television, before it even started. They didn't even bother to call for witnesses.

    So Trump is now and will always remain an impeached president. Unfortunately for the constitution and the country the republicans in the senate (with the notable exception of Mitt Romney) decided to break the oath they swore to be impartial jurors. The result; 150,000 (and counting) American dead, protests across the country, unidentified jack booted thugs trampling over our constitutional rights, and a slow slide into fascism and despotism.

  • Jul 30th, 2020 @ 12:59pm


    Sure they do. That's why they have taken to removing all insignia from their uniforms and covering their faces with gas masks. If you don't know who they are, you can't hold them responsible for either disregarding a judge's order, or someone's constitutional rights. It's like the KKK all over again.

  • Jul 30th, 2020 @ 12:56pm


    Perhaps because they enjoy the rush of power that comes from indiscriminately abusing people. Just a thought.

  • Jul 23rd, 2020 @ 6:52am

    Opted in just long enough to run those critical searches

    Color me skeptical, but I think GEDmatch's entire database of users was accidentally opted in to law enforcement searches, just long enough for some law enforcement agency to run some critical searches. Isn't this the company that was recently bought out by Verogen a company with ties to the FBI and law enforcement? Anyone that still has any of their data in that companies hands is just asking for trouble.

    Genetic matching was a nice idea in the field of genealogy. Unfortunately the lack of privacy protections in this country coupled with the overzealous (and unjustified) belief in the efficacy of DNA evidence I fear has drowned that baby in the bathtub.

  • Jul 22nd, 2020 @ 1:38pm

    Couldn't have happened to a more deserving lawyer.

    subject says it all.

  • Jul 17th, 2020 @ 7:27am

    Oklahoma is the real reason to ban TikTok

    I think that the Oklahoma rally is the real reason that the administration is so gung-ho about banning TikTok. After all, wasn't it instrumental in the million no shows to his rally?


  • Jul 11th, 2020 @ 7:23pm

    Thank you Mike, that was much better....

    Thanks for taking the time to write this followup to your first post on the subject. I appreciate the more nuanced view/stance you have taken in it.

    As you might have read in one of my other responses, I do believe that there is a cancel culture though I also believe it means different things to different people. I realize that there are always (or should be) consequences for your actions, but I worry that they aren't always proportionate. As you yourself have opined in many of your articles, it isn't always the definite but the vague that's most effective at getting people to self censor. Whether it's the Chinese government's rules about posting material that's injurious to national sovereignty, FOSTA-SESTA's admonition about facilitating sex trafficking, or simply a concern that voicing a currently unpopular opinion on somewhat controversial subject, they all share the same feature in that there's no way of knowing before you post if you are going to run afoul of that unseen line. The natural response to that is to self censor and not post. This leads to less speech being generated.

    Yes, I agree that only the government can bring the full force of the law to bear, but to most normal people, being suddenly unemployed and unemployable is just as bad, if not worse. This is why I believe that it is wrong to continue to threaten the livelihoods of ordinary people for voicing unpopular opinions online.

  • Jul 11th, 2020 @ 6:53pm


    Personally, I think it's meaning has become rather muddled. It appears to mean:

    • groups calling out celebrities or people in power for racist, or other -ist actions (that may have sometimes occurred decades ago)
    • social media (twitter/facebook) mobs trying to ruin the lives of ordinary people who don't agree with their orthodoxy
    • conservatives complaining that the terms of service violation posts getting them in trouble

    It depends on who you ask.

  • Jul 11th, 2020 @ 6:24pm


    Welcome back Stephen. Why do you constantly insert an extreme case, one that wasn't mentioned and argue against that instead of what the author posted? Kind of like when the government says that we need this law to target drug cartels and terrorists and instead uses it to go after people with $20 worth of marijuana. You're better than that.

    Back to the original point, it's currently legal in many/most cases to fire someone for saying or writing something that a sufficiently large number of people disagree with. You could debunk the belief that the earth is flat. Members of the flat earth community could find out where you live and work, accuse you of heinous crimes, or simply just flood the phone lines at the place where you work calling for you to be fired. If your company doesn't want to deal with the headache, boom. Now you are unemployed and the next person will have to think twice about publicly claiming that the earth isn't flat.

    You don't see that as a problem?

  • Jul 11th, 2020 @ 6:11pm


    The professional risk is about employees who are too willing to tolerate the "employment at will" paradigm that gives tacit permission to employers to fire employees for any reason at all regardless of how well they perform their jobs at work.

    Nice, thought, but with so many states being 'at-will' states, their only realistic choice is to accept that fact or be unemployed. Perhaps someday we'll follow some of the more enlightened nations on the other side of the pond.

  • Jul 10th, 2020 @ 10:51am


    Sorry to burst your bubble, but as I mentioned in my previous post all of the examples cited were not news stories or articles, but things I have personally witnessed espoused.

    As for what would make me feel that way. That would be experience.

    I listened to LGBTQ+ people back during the gatherings and debates in my state about legalizing same sex marriages call for all religious institutions, including Catholic, Jewish, and Muslim to be forced to perform same sex weddings. Of course as you mentioned that should have been illegal, and in fact the laws that have since been passed, first in my state and then nationwide carved out a religious exception. That didn't stop them from calling for it (or still complaining that it didn't happen).

    Remember you opined:

    Whatever made you think movements for equality and social justice for marginalized people requires any kind of harm of non-marginalized people has you all kinds of fucked up.

    I think it's rather hypocritical for you to then write:

    …which is where you fucked up.

    When I try and explain (as I thought I did rather clearly) that all of the examples presented were things I had personally experienced.

  • Jul 10th, 2020 @ 6:47am


    Let me start be writing, as to you footnote: you are probably correct, thanks.

    When you wrote:

    the only people who had any kind of sociopolitical power were straight white cisgender males.

    I think you forgot land holding or prosperous. Poor white folks didn't get the right to vote until much later. It wasn't until the 1820's that the non land holding white men could vote in New York for example.

    I am glad that:

    I know that if I’m stopped by the police for some reason, as an example, I have a greater likelihood of walking away with my life because of my skin color. I take that for granted—and that is white privilege.

    My experiences have lead me to fear interactions with the police. To know that I might be abused or killed for no reason, just because they can get away with it, and police have gotten away with it. I know that my skin color is no shield (and yes I am well, olive). So perhaps that colors my perception of white privilege somewhat. The US also has an unsavory history of it's mistreatment of immigrants (which is continuing even now), religious minorities, and others. I have been detained at airports, solely on my appearance multiple times as a suspicious person. When I was younger, I was stopped by store security because my ragamuffin looks were deemed suspicious, my apparent race provided no shield, no privilege while other black people were ignored.

    At least we seem to agree that:

    You can proclaim “Black Lives Matter” without ending white lives; you can support LGBT pride without throwing bricks at straight people; you can support women’s rights without stomping men’s balls.

    As for:

    Whatever made you think movements for equality and social justice for marginalized people requires any kind of harm of non-marginalized people has you all kinds of fucked up.

    As a personal matter, I don't. I am a firm believer in all people deserving respect, regardless of their race, sex, gender, religion, or any other characteristic. Individuals can always be less deserving (though not given), on an individual basis, but that's the exception not the rule.

    As for what would make me feel that way. That would be experience. That would be black people telling white people to "check their privilege" pulling into parking spaces. That would be LGBT people trying to force religions to perform marriages against their religious beliefs. That would be radical feminists proclaiming that men are inferior, that all sex is rape, that any unwanted interaction initiated by a man (no matter how innocent) constitutes harassment.

    The problem I see with the cancel culture (you know the original topic of this thread ;)) is that it is being co-opted by those people you claim are "all kinds of fucked up".

    And finally, no, I believe everyone could use a helping hand from time to time to get back on their feet.

  • Jul 10th, 2020 @ 5:56am


    I seem to have ruffled some feathers...

    I disagree with your premise. I never said that transgender people were acting. I said that actors could act a transgender part. That's what they do. If they can't do so convincingly then they are not good actors.

    I also disagree with your opinion that Hollywood should favor trans writers, directors, or actors even for trans scripts and roles. As you wrote (and I'll quote you so you won't accuse me of putting words in your mouth):

    Acting is a job — a thing some people do. Being transgender is something people are.

    Just because someone is or isn't trans has no bearing on whether they can act, write, or direct. You are advocating that jobs be given to people, not on the basis of their ability, but strictly on their gender. You then bring up the straw man of actors contributing to "transphobic bullshit" and of cis men "going into restrooms".

    Let me ask you this. Is there any difference, in appearance at least, between a naturally born woman and a trans woman? Is there any difference between a naturally born man and a trans man? If you say, yes, then aren't you yourself guilty of that same phobia you are accusing others of? If not, then there should be no problem with a natural born woman actress playing a trans woman role, nor of a natural born male actor playing a trans male role.

    Do those points meet with your approval?

  • Jul 9th, 2020 @ 3:53pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Depends on the white guy. A poor white guy with piercings and tattoos is more likely to get pulled over for driving a nice car than a well off black doctor or lawyer doing the same.

  • Jul 9th, 2020 @ 3:50pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    That would be classist not racist. Your Marie Antoinette reference was one of class not race. Thank you for making my point.

  • Jul 9th, 2020 @ 3:45pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Sure, I would bet that the white kid forced to sell his body in the projects of Chicago would be suffering more with all of the unpleasantness that society heaps upon Black people.

    Kanye West, Oprah Winfrey, Beyoncé, or Gen. Colin Powell are truly suffering under all of the unpleasantness that society heaps upon Black people.

    Some people in society are racists, some institutions are racist, practically all are classist.

    "White privilege" is the mistaken belief that every white person somehow has it better than other races in this country based simply on the color of their skin. The call from predominantly black people or virtue signalling white people to "check your privilege" is a racist statement. The person making that statement is telling the white person to stop thinking that you can get away with something, or doing something just because your white. That white person, had no control over the color of the skin they were born with. That white person may not even have any advantage in this particular situation. It's just a politically correct way to racially slander a group based on a characteristic without facing societal consequences.

  • Jul 9th, 2020 @ 3:24pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    Apparently your reading comprehension has failed you somewhat in this instance. The original comment I was referring to was the author's belief that only transgendered people were capable of or should be allowed to tell stories of trangender people when there are transgendered people who can act, write, and direct.

    I responded that is the very definition of acting (and it is).

    My analogy was that the authors statement was equivalent to assuming you had to have personal experience in the role/story in order to act in it or write it. Using WWI was taking it to it's ridiculous conclusion to make a point. I could have instead opted for the more frequent casting of gay men as romantic cis leads and or cis leads playing gay roles. Much like with trans actors, there is a greater call for only gay actors to be allowed to play these roles as only gay actors can know what it's like to be gay.

    As for an example, sure, Ruby Rose was cast as Batwoman some say because she was a lesbian, while others that she wasn't lesbian enough. Of course the mob got out it's pitchforks because (wait for it) the character is Jewish and the actress wasn't (hmm, kind of like my WWI analogy above). The CW even went so far as to come out after Ruby's departure and insist that they would only hire an LGBTQ+ actress for the part, regardless of whether or not they could actually act.

More comments from jilocasin >>

This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it