John Snape 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (235)

• On the post: Enough With The Myth That Big Tech Is 'Censoring' Conservatives AND That The Law Requires Them To Be Neutral

  

  John Snape ( profile ), 02 Aug, 2019 @ 12:10pm

  Re: Re: Re: Re: It's Adorable

  The second is that only progressives would think it harassment to intentionally refer to someone who had a name change by their old name.

  Is that why progressives call Trump, Drumpf?

• On the post: Josh Hawley Wants To Appoint Himself Product Manager For The Internet

  

  John Snape ( profile ), 31 Jul, 2019 @ 09:38pm

  Re: Re: Yes, it's a bummer Google wasn't as smart as they though

  What is an 'acceotabce'? Does it have something to do with 'covfefe'?

• On the post: Josh Hawley Wants To Appoint Himself Product Manager For The Internet

  

  John Snape ( profile ), 31 Jul, 2019 @ 09:36pm

  Re: Re:

  Why do you post this stuff then go silent as soon as everyone proves you wrong?

  Because I don't sit at my computer all day refreshing the page so I can respond in a time frame that satisfies you.

• On the post: Josh Hawley Wants To Appoint Himself Product Manager For The Internet

  

  John Snape ( profile ), 31 Jul, 2019 @ 09:34pm

  Re: Re:

  ...including protecting the right of spammers to speak, and the right of them to force you to read it...

  You're arguing against things I never said: I never said they had a right to force you to read what they wrote. I just said they have a right to say what they want to say. You are free to read it or not. The point is: it should be your decision if you want to read it or not, not a publisher deciding what you can or can't read.

• On the post: Josh Hawley Wants To Appoint Himself Product Manager For The Internet

  

  John Snape ( profile ), 31 Jul, 2019 @ 05:51pm

  Re: Re:

  ...why shouldn't Twitter have the Right to proudly display on it's home page, "The Home of Socialism - is you don't like it, go try Gab" if they want?

  It would be honest of them if they did, but they don't. They pretend they are open to everyone and a neutral platform, but they aren't. They're a biased publisher who is deciding what (and who) gets published and what (or who) doesn't.

• On the post: Josh Hawley Wants To Appoint Himself Product Manager For The Internet

  

  John Snape ( profile ), 30 Jul, 2019 @ 05:17pm

  ...his last bill to strip internet companies of Section 230 protections, unless they agree to allow Nazis to speak.

  That should read:

  ...his last bill to strip internet companies of Section 230 protections, unless they agree to allow everyone to speak, regardless of viewpoint.

• On the post: Oakland, California On Its Way To Becoming The Third US City To Ban Facial Recognition Tech

  

  John Snape ( profile ), 22 Jul, 2019 @ 03:34pm

  Now we just need to ban

  If we could now ban Stingrays and the TSA, we'd be closer to normalcy in this country.

• On the post: Laura Loomer Files Defamation Suit Against Facebook For Calling Her 'Dangerous' When Booting Her From The Platform

  

  John Snape ( profile ), 16 Jul, 2019 @ 08:23pm

  Re: Re: Re:

  They're not death camps. That's just stupid. You and Stephen T. Stone seem to be roaming these comment sections tag-teaming to spread false information.

• On the post: Laura Loomer Files Defamation Suit Against Facebook For Calling Her 'Dangerous' When Booting Her From The Platform

  

  John Snape ( profile ), 16 Jul, 2019 @ 03:52am

  Re:

  I haven't won the lottery. (Yet.) But any day now I'm guaranteed to win the jackpot! Can't you see it?!?!?!?! It's gonna happen!!!!!!! Your hyperbolic scaremongering is the same as Alex Jones' 'FEMA camps' ridiculousness. Congratulations! You've earned the same dismissive mockery and derision typically reserved for buffoons like Jones. And how is it dehumanizing to uphold the law?

• On the post: Laura Loomer Files Defamation Suit Against Facebook For Calling Her 'Dangerous' When Booting Her From The Platform

  

  John Snape ( profile ), 15 Jul, 2019 @ 04:27pm

  Re: Re: That's laughable

  What do you think they'll do when Trump is out of office and they don't have their boogeyman anymore?

• On the post: Laura Loomer Files Defamation Suit Against Facebook For Calling Her 'Dangerous' When Booting Her From The Platform

  

  John Snape ( profile ), 15 Jul, 2019 @ 04:26pm

  Re:

  Yes, Trump is such a brutal, fascist dictator that you now have to worry about being snatched in the dead of night at any moment and whisked away to the firing squad in the town square for your insolence. Oh, wait, no you don't. The fiction you've built up in your mind is false.

• On the post: Laura Loomer Files Defamation Suit Against Facebook For Calling Her 'Dangerous' When Booting Her From The Platform

  

  John Snape ( profile ), 14 Jul, 2019 @ 05:50pm

  Re: Re: Re: Re: Are you serious?

  Why is it so fucking hard for you to show us a concrete example of one of the two groups you have linked to posting things on Facebook that is against their ToS and is promoting or engaging in violence.

  Where in the following statement does it say the promotion of violence has to be posted to Facebook? "We've always banned individuals or organizations that promote or engage in violence and hate, regardless of ideology. The process for evaluating potential violators is extensive and it is what led us to our decision to remove these accounts today."

• On the post: Laura Loomer Files Defamation Suit Against Facebook For Calling Her 'Dangerous' When Booting Her From The Platform

  

  John Snape ( profile ), 14 Jul, 2019 @ 06:03am

  Re: Re: Are you serious?

  Now why don't you show me a Facebook post that shows that they are "... individuals or organizations that promote or engage in violence..." that are from the specific groups that you pointed to earlier??

  I linked to Portland Antifa, who are in the video explicitly saying they use violence as a means to an end. https://youtu.be/kUu46J_OHQ4?t=86 By any means necessary includes violence and murder.

• On the post: Laura Loomer Files Defamation Suit Against Facebook For Calling Her 'Dangerous' When Booting Her From The Platform

  

  John Snape ( profile ), 13 Jul, 2019 @ 09:00am

  Are you serious?

  "We've always banned individuals or organizations that promote or engage in violence..." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kUu46J_OHQ4

• On the post: Laura Loomer Files Defamation Suit Against Facebook For Calling Her 'Dangerous' When Booting Her From The Platform

  

  John Snape ( profile ), 13 Jul, 2019 @ 01:16am

  That's laughable

  "We've always banned individuals or organizations that promote or engage in violence and hate, regardless of ideology."

  Like Antifa:

  https://www.facebook.com/Los-Angeles-Antifa-698064250400658/

  https://www.facebook.com/groups/PortlandAntifa/

• On the post: Content Moderation At Scale Is Impossible: The Case Of YouTube And 'Hacking' Videos

  

  John Snape ( profile ), 08 Jul, 2019 @ 03:32pm

  Wait a second...

  Just last week I was told that YouTube can host or not host whatever it does or does not want to, and I had to just shut up and take it. Complaining was forbidden! If I didn't like it, I could take the half a trillion dollars I have lying around and go build my own video hosting platform.

  Now there's a whole article on Techdirt bemoaning the fact that YouTube is doing what so many last week said they have every right to do.

  So which is it?

• On the post: WSJ Op Ed Warns: Killing Section 230, Kills The Internet

  

  John Snape ( profile ), 04 Jul, 2019 @ 11:58am

  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

  My restaurant was open to the public, and I also had the right to kick somebody out, permanently even, (only ever had to once in 15 years.) Why can't Twitter do the same thing, even though we are both "open to the public"

  Your restaurant analogy is fundamentally flawed: Unless the patrons of your restaurant have a 'block' button or an 'unfriend' button to silence the other patrons, it is not the same. When Twitter, et al., decide to silence their users, they are effectively silencing them for all of their users, whether those users want that person silenced or not. That's why the post office doesn't block people from sending mail to someone else unless it contains illegal material. If you don't like the speech you receive in the mail, you throw it away. If you don't like the speech you receive through Facebook or Twitter, you block the person and go on with your life. But the point is, it's you deciding what you want to hear, not Twitter or Facebook.

• On the post: Sinclair Faces Expanded Probe For Shady Behavior During Tribune Merger

  

  John Snape ( profile ), 03 Jul, 2019 @ 06:37pm

  Shady is as shady does.

  Ban all companies from owning more than 1 station anywhere.

• On the post: WSJ Op Ed Warns: Killing Section 230, Kills The Internet

  

  John Snape ( profile ), 02 Jul, 2019 @ 05:10pm

  Re:

  First Amendment jurisprudence says you can choose whether you associate with specific people/forms of speech. For what reason would you ever give up that right voluntarily, much less force everyone else to give up that right by force of law?

  Why would you force a bakery or florist or photographer to associate with someone they don't like? You can't have it both ways. If those businesses must associate with those they dislike, why not Twitter, et al.? Maybe a little consistency in your application of logic?

• On the post: WSJ Op Ed Warns: Killing Section 230, Kills The Internet

  

  John Snape ( profile ), 02 Jul, 2019 @ 05:03pm

  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

  So you don't think a restaurant should have the right to kick somebody out if they are yelling and screaming racist slurs?

  Make it a private club and you won't have to worry about people screaming in your restaurant. Ma Maison made their restaurant private and never published their phone number or allowed walk-ins. You can do the same if you don't want to be open to the public.

Next >>