ThorsProvoni 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (697)

• On the post: Two Dozen Texas Cities Latest To Try And Push A Netflix Tax

  

  ThorsProvoni ( profile ), 02 Sep, 2022 @ 06:06pm

  Physical Presence is Defined by Statute Not by an Ignorant Geek

  It the old days when the RBOCs (now ILECs) belonged to AT&T, an RBOC had a physical presence wherever it provided service or rented equipment and paid taxes according to its income from the end loop. Likewise for cable providers although the cable provider model was somewhat simpler than the telephone service provider model. Today, a streaming medium platform downloads software to end user's computing device and provides service by means of the general purpose hardware, which has been transformed into CPE by means of the software download. If the statute is correctly written, there is no reason that a streaming medium service should not be taxable as a cable provider or an RBOC was taxable.

• On the post: Stop Trying To Make State Action Doctrine Happen

  

  ThorsProvoni ( profile ), 30 Aug, 2022 @ 03:34am

  I pay attention to a Court

  I don't pay attention to an Anonymous Clown.

• On the post: Stop Trying To Make State Action Doctrine Happen

  

  ThorsProvoni ( profile ), 30 Aug, 2022 @ 03:32am

  AC is too stupid to understand layered encapsulation

  If I put some documents in a Hebrew-addressed mailer,

  1. which says Haifa in Latin letters and
  2. which is carried by a bicycle courier to a shipper, who puts them in an English-tagged cargo pouch and carries the cargo pouch to Haifa, where an employee of the shipper removes the mailer from the the English-addressed cargo pouch, hands the (Hebrew-addressed) mailer to a courier, who carries the mailer to a law office, for whom I doing some work,

  three common carriers (two couriers and one shipper) participate in the above scenario. I was not a common carrier when I put the documents in a mailer. There are two layers of encapsulation and two levels of common carriage. A common carriage example, which has two layers of encapsulation and two levels of common carriers, seems too complex for Anonymous Clown to understand. A common carriage situation, in which there are multiple layers of encapsulation and multiple common carriers, is well-understood from telex-telephone network examples and from PSPDN examples.

• On the post: Stop Trying To Make State Action Doctrine Happen

  

  ThorsProvoni ( profile ), 30 Aug, 2022 @ 01:55am

  Anonymous Coward Believes that the Internet Operates by Magic

  The backend of every major social medium platform uses a Single-Page Application to communicate with a frontend browser that runs on a desktop or on a laptop.

• On the post: Stop Trying To Make State Action Doctrine Happen

  

  ThorsProvoni ( profile ), 30 Aug, 2022 @ 01:43am

  Joachim Martillo is My Pen Name

  I explain in the Original Complaint.

• On the post: Stop Trying To Make State Action Doctrine Happen

  

  ThorsProvoni ( profile ), 30 Aug, 2022 @ 01:19am

  Zeran/Halleck is as Binding Precedent as Roe v. Wade

  The First Circuit of the Court of Appeals has never bought into Zeran, which is based in logical fallacy while MCA is a cablecaster for a cable network. The fundamental controversy of Halleck has no similarity to the controversy of social medium platform discrimination with respect to:

  1. state action,
  2. public accommodation,
  3. civil rights, and
  4. common carriage.

  White racist Stephen T. Stone has one goal: to suppress an open public discussion

  1. of the genocide that Zionist colonial settler anti-Jews perpetrate in stolen Palestine and
  2. of the federal crimes that he and his racist ilk perpetrate in the USA because material support of genocide is material support to terrorists.

• On the post: Stop Trying To Make State Action Doctrine Happen

  

  ThorsProvoni ( profile ), 28 Aug, 2022 @ 03:48pm

  Yes, Stephen T. Stone Should Put a Monumental Dumbass Sign on His Lawn

  Not only is Burton relevant, but Perry Ed. Assn. v. Perry Local Educators' Assn, 460 U.S. 37, 103 S. Ct. 948 (1983) may be even more onpoint. Here is an interesting passage.

  In places which by long tradition or by government fiat have been devoted to assembly and debate, the rights of the State to limit expressive activity are sharply circumscribed. At one end of the spectrum are streets and parks which "have immemorially been held in trust for the use of the public and, time out of mind, have been used for purposes of assembly, communicating thoughts between citizens, and discussing public questions." Hague v. CIO, 307 U.S. 496, 515 (1939). In these quintessential public forums, the government may not prohibit all communicative activity. For the State to enforce a content-based exclusion it must show that its regulation is necessary to serve a compelling state interest and that it is narrowly drawn to achieve that end. Carey v. Brown, 447 U.S. 455, 461 (1980). The State may also enforce regulations of the time, place, and manner of expression which are content-neutral, are narrowly tailored to serve a significant government interest, and leave open ample alternative channels of communication. United States Postal Service v. Council of Greenburgh Civic Assns., 453 U.S. 114, 132 (1981); Consolidated Edison Co. v. Public Service Comm'n, 447 U.S. 530, 535-536 (1980); Grayned v. City of Rockford, supra, at 115; Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296 (1940); Schneider v. State, 308 U.S. 147 (1939). A second category consists of public property which the State has opened for use by the public as a place for expressive activity. The Constitution forbids a State to enforce certain exclusions from a forum generally open to the public even if it was not required to create the forum in the first place. Widmar v. Vincent, 454 U.S. 263 (1981) (university meeting facilities); City of Madison Joint School District v. Wisconsin Employment Relations Comm'n, 429 U.S. 167 (1976) (school board meeting); Southeastern Promotions, Ltd. v. Conrad, 420 U.S. 546 (1975) (municipal theater). Although a State is not required to indefinitely retain the open character of the facility, as long as it does so it is bound by the same standards as apply in a traditional public forum. Reasonable time, place, and manner regulations are permissible, and a content-based prohibition must be narrowly drawn to effectuate a compelling state interest. Widmar v. Vincent, supra, at 269-270.

  My wife and I can almost certainly argue that the Arpanet/Internet was a designated public forum before privatization, which was only partial. ISPs became federally-regulated telecommunications common carriers -- no First Amendment problem there. Partial privatization of the Internet served inextricably to intertwine a social medium platform with the federal government so that a social medium platform became a state actor and may not "[abridge] the freedom of speech" within the Internet. In addition, a social medium platform remains a common carrier and a place of public accommodation for numerous purposes covered by the 1964 Civil Rights Act. A white racist like Stephen T. Stone can babble incoherently about hosting speech, but a common carrier often stores property at an intermediate location before forwarding it to its next destination. Calling such temporary storage hosting is not going to enable a social medium platform to escape common carriage law, and a Court is likely to consider such a nonsense argument to be legal admission of bad faith (or even of dishonesty) on the part of the social medium platform. We are discussing a controversy in equity. A party before a Court of Equity must approach the Court with clean hands or the Court will discount arguments of the party. McMahon left notes about bringing

  1. a count for group libel and
  2. a count of conspiracy, incitement, or complicity in genocide according to the Alien Tort Statute.

  It's hard to be dirtier than a social medium platform

  1. that discriminates against non-white and non-Europeans or
  2. that gets implicated in an ongoing genocide.

  McMahon considered a count of civil RICO. We believe it was a good idea.

• On the post: Stop Trying To Make State Action Doctrine Happen

  

  ThorsProvoni ( profile ), 28 Aug, 2022 @ 01:46pm

  SCOTUS Has Never Affirmed Zeran-Based Caselaw

  Now that I have informed SCOTUS of the logical fallacy in the Zeran ruling of the Court of Appeals of the Fourth Circuit, it is unlikely that SCOTUS will ever uphold Zeran-based caselaw. Forestalling affirmation of Zeran-based caselaw is only a small first step in taking down every social medium platform that discriminates against non-whites and non-Europeans. McMahon appears to have thought the whole strategy through even if he did not explain all the details to me before he died. He made me promise to follow the whole plan to the bitter end if he died during the litigation.

• On the post: Stop Trying To Make State Action Doctrine Happen

  

  ThorsProvoni ( profile ), 28 Aug, 2022 @ 12:51pm

  Nothing Really Wrong with § 230

  I read through 2020 09 17 Cox Wyden FCC Reply Comments Final[2]. I don't disagree with anything the authors say, but there is no indication that tells us the authors understand the huge differences between a 1996 ICS and a 2022 Social Medium Platform. In the end SCOTUS will reach a ruling on the basis of the text. If SCOTUS needs more information, SCOTUS will try to determine the intent of Congress as a whole at the time of enactment and will not pay attention to the claims of individual authors decades later. The problem of § 230 lies with Zeran-based caselaw and with treating a 2022 social medium platform like a 1996 ICS. I analyzed § 230 before I started the litigation. A 2022 social medium platform is not a 1996 ICS as it is defined in § 230. Here is my analysis.

  1. What Is an Interactive Computer Service by Careful Grammatical and Syntactic Analysis?
  2. So What was a 1996 § 230 Access Software Provider?

• On the post: Stop Trying To Make State Action Doctrine Happen

  

  ThorsProvoni ( profile ), 28 Aug, 2022 @ 12:00pm

  It's Good that a Vile White Racist Supporter of Social Medium Platform Discrimination is Not Laughing

  I intend to bring every white racist supporter of social medium platform discrimination to tears.

• On the post: Stop Trying To Make State Action Doctrine Happen

  

  ThorsProvoni ( profile ), 28 Aug, 2022 @ 10:22am

  Anonymous Clown is too Stupid for Words

  We have only one post office in the USA. Suppose we had 50 state post offices in the US, but a state post office could only deliver

  1. to an addressee in its own state or
  2. to a federal post office branch in its own state.

  Suppose that a federal post office can direct an international envelope to an international carrier or carry a state post office envelope to the destination state post office. The federal post office only carries letters among the state post offices or to an international mail carrier. Suppose I am in Massachusetts but want to mail a letter to my wife, who is a college student in California. I create an envelope, which can be carried by the California state post office to my wife's address. I put my letter in a California state postal envelope and drop it off at a Massachusetts state post office. Because the Massachusetts state post office cannot deliver to an addressee in California, the Massachusetts state post office creates a federal postal envelope and addresses it to the California state postal office in California. The Massachusetts state post office brings all such federal postal envelopes to a local Massachusetts federal post office branch. The federal postal office carries each federal post office envelope to a federal post office branch in the state that is addressed on the federal post office envelope. When the California branch of the federal post office receives a federal post office envelope, the California branch of the federal post office opens up the federal post office envelope, finds that it contains a California state post office letter addressed to my wife. (It might have found an international envelope, which would have to be carried to a local California international mail carrier.) The California branch of the federal post office brings my California post office envelope to a local California state post office, which then delivers the letter to my wife, who is a student at a California college. In this example, the federal postal service and all the state postal services are common carriers. Neither the letter originator nor the letter addressee is a common carrier. I reiterate. Anonymous Clown is too stupid for words.

• On the post: Stop Trying To Make State Action Doctrine Happen

  

  ThorsProvoni ( profile ), 28 Aug, 2022 @ 07:11am

  Androgyny and Neuter Biology are special cases

  There is a specialized vocabulary for these special cases.

• On the post: Stop Trying To Make State Action Doctrine Happen

  

  ThorsProvoni ( profile ), 28 Aug, 2022 @ 07:07am

  Anonymous Clown is too Ignorant for Words

  Even in 1869 the General Court of Massachusetts understood that one carrier could make use of another carrier. MGL c.159 s.1

  Every common carrier of merchandise or other property shall receive, transport and forward all property offered for such purposes by other such carriers as promptly, faithfully and impartially, at as low rates of charge, and in a manner and on terms and conditions as favorable to the carrier offering such property, as he on the same day and at the same place receives, forwards and transports, in the ordinary course of business, property of a like description offered by persons other than such carriers. Such carrier shall not discriminate against any particular person or subject him to any undue or unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage. The supreme judicial or superior court shall have jurisdiction in equity to enforce this section.

  Anonymous Clown is too ignorant and stupid to understand that one envelope can contain another envelope. Twitter message common carrier software puts a tweet (the message) into an HTTP message envelope. This HTTP message envelope is handed to system software, which puts the HTTP message envelope (the packet data) into a TCP/IP packet envelope. The TCP/IP packet envelope is used by at least one ISP to deliver the TCP/IP packet envelop to the destination computing device. System software delivers the HTTP message envelope contained in the TCP/IP packet envelop to a listening application. Except for the initial HTTP GET/RESPONSE handshake of a listening browser or app, which extracts Twitter message common carrier software from the HTTP RESPONSE, the destination computing device can't do anything with the HTTP message envelop except discard it unless Twitter message common carrier software is running on the destination computing device. ISP software enables the packet common carriage of the TCP/IP packet envelope. Twitter software enables the message common carriage of the HTTP message envelope. Twitter is a common carrier of an HTTP message envelope, which Twitter software puts into a TCP/IP packet envelope so that the ISP can perform TCP/IP packet common carriage of the TCP/IP packet envelope, which contains the HTTP message envelope, which Twitter common carriage software carries end-to-end. Anonymous Clown is too ignorant and too stupid for words. I understood protocol/envelope layering when I was programming an IBM 7090 in grammar school. Does Anonymous Clown know as much as a 7 year old? Apparently not. BTW, Eric Goldman is clueless with respect to this technology and with respect to this type of common carriage. His legal area is creative intellect property law and trademark law (Title 17 and Title 15). I see nothing, which evidences that he has expertise in Title 35 (inventive intellectual property law) or in Title 47 (transmission technology). His CV suggests that he does not have the qualifications to take the patent bar examination.

• On the post: Stop Trying To Make State Action Doctrine Happen

  

  ThorsProvoni ( profile ), 27 Aug, 2022 @ 03:53pm

  Some removal of statues is occurring

  See Thomas Jefferson statue removed from New York City Hall after complaints that it honored an enslaver.

• On the post: Stop Trying To Make State Action Doctrine Happen

  

  ThorsProvoni ( profile ), 27 Aug, 2022 @ 03:49pm

  Among Other Things I am a Full Stack Developer

  I write frontends and backends. There are a good number of online courses that explain frontend and backend development. Such online courses are self-evidently beyond the comprehension of Anonymous Coward/Anonymous Nitwit. I am preparing such a presentation for my legal team. Unfortunately, because I am a party in Martillo v. Twitter, I cannot provide an expert report or expert testimony on subject.

• On the post: Stop Trying To Make State Action Doctrine Happen

  

  ThorsProvoni ( profile ), 27 Aug, 2022 @ 03:41pm

  An ISP Provides Common Carriage of a Transport Layer Packet

  Twitter provides common carriage of a tweet, about which an ISP knows nothing. Twitter provides common carriage of a tweet

  1. in exchange for work (“eyes on a page”),
  2. in exchange for barter (content), and
  3. in exchange for a fee to increase the number of users that see the tweet.

  BD AC needs to start calling himself Anonymous Nitwit.

• On the post: Stop Trying To Make State Action Doctrine Happen

  

  ThorsProvoni ( profile ), 27 Aug, 2022 @ 03:36pm

  An ISP Provides Common Carriage of a Transport Layer Packet

  Twitter provides common carriage of a tweet, about which an ISP knows nothing. Twitter provides common carriage of a tweet

  1. in exchange for work ("eyes on a page"),
  2. in exchange for barter (content), and
  3. in exchange for a fee to increase the number of users that see the tweet.

• On the post: UK Columnist: Because Salman Rushdie Got Stabbed, We Should Regulate Online Speech, Get Rid Of Anonymity, And Hold Social Media Responsible

  

  ThorsProvoni ( profile ), 27 Aug, 2022 @ 12:04pm

  The Amazing Ignorance of a White Racist Supporter of Discrimination by a Social Medium Platform!

  See Beauharnais v. Illinois, 343 U.S. 250 (1952).

• On the post: Stop Trying To Make State Action Doctrine Happen

  

  ThorsProvoni ( profile ), 27 Aug, 2022 @ 10:05am

  Ignorant Nitwit is As Ignorant Nitwit Comments

  Once a social medium platform serves its software/web page to the user's computing device in response to the initial HTTP GET request, software of the social medium platform performs digital message common carriage between the social medium platform's server and user's computing device. The point is simple, and only someone semi-educated in the technology seems unable to comprehend this trivial point. James P. Schuck,

  1. who seems to have no technical knowledge of the Internet and
  2. who is the judge, who presides over STATE OF OHIO ex rel. DAVE YOST v GOOGLE, LLC [21 CV H 06 0274],

  understands the point, which is trivial for anyone that has half a brain -- obviously not true for Brain-Dead Anonymous Coward. The proper non-Internet analogy is Amazon Whole Foods, which delivers groceries to Amazon customers. Amazon Whole Foods is a supermarket and a common carrier. The digital messages from the server to the user are analogous to the groceries. I do not yet have an analogy for the reverse direction, but it's not important because bidirectional message common carriage starts with the telegraph and is not common outside of message common carriage. User-to-user common carriage by the social medium platform can be constructed from a plurality of spokes of user-to-and-from-server common carriage if we consider the server to be the common carriage hub for a plurality of users. Anonymous Coward should change his handle to Anonymous Nitwit.

• On the post: The Problem With The Otherwise Very Good And Very Important Eleventh Circuit Decision On The Florida Social Media Law

  

  ThorsProvoni ( profile ), 27 Aug, 2022 @ 08:37am

  Obviously I left out "not"

  I meant. Do you accept that a business can offer a service, which is common carriage, and a service, which is not common carriage? [Quasi-Common Carriage]?

Next >>