Khym Chanur 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (694)

• On the post: Utter Bullshit: Reporter Maria Ressa Arrested Over Bogus Charges For Her Critical Reporting

  

  Khym Chanur ( profile ), 13 Feb, 2019 @ 11:44am

  Re:

  The single publication rule, combined with Section 230, makes people defenseless against libel that turns up in search engines,

  If search engines were responsible for indexing defamatory pages then there wouldn't be any search engines, since it's impossible for an algorithm to determine if something is defamatory. Or, wait, are you the commenter who claims to have figured out a way for search engines to exclude defamatory pages, and that in the absence of Section 230 you'd be able to make a business out of a search engine with this amazing defamation detecting technology?

• On the post: Report Shows ICE Almost Never Punishes Contractors Housing Detainees No Matter How Many Violations They Rack Up

  

  Khym Chanur ( profile ), 11 Feb, 2019 @ 06:07pm

  Re:

  The homeless are free to leave homeless shelters if they so desire, detainees aren't free to leave.

• On the post: ChooseCo Inks Lucrative Deal With Amazon, Possibly Thanks To Netflix's 'Bandersnatch'

  

  Khym Chanur ( profile ), 08 Feb, 2019 @ 04:55pm

  Re: Re: Re:

  I was talking about piracy

  Then I guess I got a bit confused when you mentioned "middleman" in your first paragraph.

• On the post: ChooseCo Inks Lucrative Deal With Amazon, Possibly Thanks To Netflix's 'Bandersnatch'

  

  Khym Chanur ( profile ), 08 Feb, 2019 @ 04:20pm

  Re:

  Except the noncreator gets a free mailing list that is worth a fortune by becoming a middleman for the product.

  Do you mean that the middleman constructs a mailing list from those who buy the product, whereas without a middleman thee creator would know who the customers are, construct the mailing list from that, and then the creator could have made additional money from renting out the mailing list? Or do you mean that the creator provides an existing mailing list to the middle man, or what?

• On the post: Hawaii The Latest To Push Bullshit Porn Filter Law Pushed By Sketchy Backers

  

  Khym Chanur ( profile ), 08 Feb, 2019 @ 01:15pm

  Re:

  What does requiring ISPs to implements filters have to do with Facebook, Google, Microsoft or Amazon?

• On the post: Copyright Holders Still Don't Support EU's Already Awful Upload Filter Proposal; Demand It Be Made Worse

  

  Khym Chanur ( profile ), 07 Feb, 2019 @ 04:00pm

  Re: Re:

  Of course when I did that the major networks and the big publishers just plagiarized me, which I can also prove

  Plagiarism of copyrighted work is already against the law, so I don't see why you'd need anything like section 13 to go after them if you can prove it.

• On the post: Australian Government Agencies Already Flexing Their New Encryption-Breaking Powers

  

  Khym Chanur ( profile ), 07 Feb, 2019 @ 10:32am

  If the tell the maker of an smartphone app to break security for one particular user, how will that work what with the app being distributed through the Android or iPhone app store? Have Google and Apple already put in the capability for an app developer to do that?

• On the post: Gavin McInnes Files Laughably Silly Defamation Lawsuit Against Southern Poverty Law Center

  

  Khym Chanur ( profile ), 06 Feb, 2019 @ 03:06am

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

  Please don't get into whataboutism here, dood!

  I wasn't intending to imply that anyone here was being hypocritical. (Or, if by "whataboutism" you mean something other than "[...] a variant of the tu quoque logical fallacy that attempts to discredit an opponent's position by charging them with hypocrisy without directly refuting or disproving their argument ..." then I'm not sure what you mean)

• On the post: Gavin McInnes Files Laughably Silly Defamation Lawsuit Against Southern Poverty Law Center

  

  Khym Chanur ( profile ), 05 Feb, 2019 @ 10:13pm

  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

  They're not the only ones responsible, of course, but they definitely should share significantly in the blame and the punishment. Any law or ruling that says otherwise is horrendously unjust.

  If that applies to not just lies, but also to opinions and true facts, then it gives a third parties the ability to unilaterally silence a speaker (heckler's veto). If someone didn't like John Doe talking about XYZ then they could anonymously threaten Doe that they'll assault/murder a random person the next time Doe talks about XYZ, and then Doe will have to just hope that it's a bluff if he wants to keep talking about the subject. Or, as another scenario, say that there's someone who is openly a neo-Nazi (self-identifies as a Nazi, swastika armband, etc). I truthfully say on Twitter that he's a neo-Nazi, someone reads that and based on that knowledge goes out and shoots him. If I'm punished by the law because the shooter found out that info from me, people are going to think "this piece of information about So-and-so is going to make people pissed off at him, so maybe I'd better not share it".

• On the post: Gavin McInnes Files Laughably Silly Defamation Lawsuit Against Southern Poverty Law Center

  

  Khym Chanur ( profile ), 05 Feb, 2019 @ 05:29pm

  Re:

  People are harmed in response to false allegation of racism.

  So your position is that, legally, whether or not someone is racist is a matter of fact rather than a matter of opinion?

• On the post: Gavin McInnes Files Laughably Silly Defamation Lawsuit Against Southern Poverty Law Center

  

  Khym Chanur ( profile ), 05 Feb, 2019 @ 05:23pm

  Re: Re: Re:

  When law enforcement organizations take their designations as gospel (which is a real thing that happens) and people get put on government watch lists because they were on the SPLC "hate list" (which is a real thing that happens)

  Then those organizations should be sued, and/or laws passed to prevent them from using the statements of a private organizations like that.

  and people get shot because they were on the SPLC "hate list" (which is, again, a real thing that has happened,)

  Lets say that say that I had a blog with a large following, and in the past when I've wrote "So-and-so is a horrible person" that So-and-so got shot at. Now if I'd cultivated an audience of people who are likely to go out and shoot anyone I declare to be a horrible person, or if elsewhere I've implied that anyone I declare a horrible person deserves to die, I could understand wanting to hold me accountable. Are you claiming that SPLC has acted like that? Or is it that you consider "hate group" to not be a statement of opinion while "horrible person" is a statement of opinion? Or, in my hypothetical situation do you think that once people started shooting at people I declared to be horrible that I should be legally required to keep my mouth shut even if I hadn't done anything to influence the situation? If so, should I be held responsible if sharing true facts about So-and-so (which aren't invasion of privacy or doxxing) leads to So-and-so getting shot?

• On the post: US Newspapers Now Salivating Over Bringing A Google Snippet Tax Stateside

  

  Khym Chanur ( profile ), 01 Feb, 2019 @ 07:30pm

  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Common law is NO part of &qu

  MY First Amendment Rights -- which exist everywhere,

  Then what about on a private blog, where the blog owner decides to ban you from the comments section or arbitrarily deletes some of your comments? Is the blog owner violating your First Amendment rights? Or does the blog owner's First Amendment rights override yours, so there is no rights violation(s)?

• On the post: US Newspapers Now Salivating Over Bringing A Google Snippet Tax Stateside

  

  Khym Chanur ( profile ), 01 Feb, 2019 @ 06:52pm

  Re: Re: Re: Re: Common law is NO part of "schtick&q

  If you do not understand that Common Law authorizes the Constitution

  Yeah, that statement makes no sense to me. Is there a website, book or author that explains what you mean? Is your position similar to that of Sovereign Citizens or Freemen on the Land? If so, is there a particular variety of them that are closest to your positions?

  It's YOU who are ignorant, then. OR you're simply trying to waste my time with LONG exposition that you won't read,

  If there's some websites/books/authors which explains what you mean I'll be happy to read them rather than pester you for an explanation.

  Masnick is wrong that corporations can arbitrarily control MY First Amendment speech even on "platforms".

  I can understand the position "corporations aren't people, therefore they don't have First Amendment protections, therefore [fill in the blank]". However, that doesn't seem to be the point you're making. I can also understand the position that Facebook/Twitter/etc are so big and important that they can restrict free speech even though they aren't the government, and thus should be regulated like common carriers. However, Techdirt isn't anywhere near that big. Also Techdirt and Facebook/Twitter/etc aren't a part of the government, to which the First Amendment applies. Of course, the issue of free speech is larger than just the First Amendment, but you specifically referred to your First Amendment rights.

• On the post: US Newspapers Now Salivating Over Bringing A Google Snippet Tax Stateside

  

  Khym Chanur ( profile ), 01 Feb, 2019 @ 06:12pm

  Re: Re: Common law is NO part of "schtick".

  Wait, it's useless for you to specify which parts of common law you're referring to and/or to specify exactly what you mean by common law? Personally, I think it would be useful to me to understand what exactly what you mean.

• On the post: US Newspapers Now Salivating Over Bringing A Google Snippet Tax Stateside

  

  Khym Chanur ( profile ), 01 Feb, 2019 @ 06:01pm

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

  A TINY portion is schtick, which I should avoid.

  If part of your schtick is not naming which parts of common law you mean and/or not specifying what you mean by "common law", then yes, you definitely SHOULD avoid it.

• On the post: US Newspapers Now Salivating Over Bringing A Google Snippet Tax Stateside

  

  Khym Chanur ( profile ), 01 Feb, 2019 @ 03:55pm

  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: How do you &

  Well, the anecdotal is that news site claim are going broke.

  I'm not saying that they aren't going broke. They might very well be going broke. What I am saying is that places linking to the news sites, with the links containing the headlines, aren't a cause of them going broke, much less a primary cause. If they are a cause of the news sites going broke, where's the evidence for that? The mere fact that news sites claim it? Or for some reason is "things like Google News are a cause of news sites going broke" the null hypothesis?

• On the post: US Newspapers Now Salivating Over Bringing A Google Snippet Tax Stateside

  

  Khym Chanur ( profile ), 01 Feb, 2019 @ 03:19pm

  Natural law vs common law

  First, here's you giving a PRIOR to common law notion of "natural law":

  But then

  Common law is as up-to-date as tomorrow because ETERNAL TRUTH.

  If common law is an "eternal truth", then how is natural law prior to it?

• On the post: US Newspapers Now Salivating Over Bringing A Google Snippet Tax Stateside

  

  Khym Chanur ( profile ), 01 Feb, 2019 @ 02:02pm

  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: How do you &quot

  It's "handy" in the it's simple, but that doesn't mean I think it's a good idea. It'd be proportionate if linkers were hurting the news sites, but they're helping the news sites by sending them traffic.

• On the post: US Newspapers Now Salivating Over Bringing A Google Snippet Tax Stateside

  

  Khym Chanur ( profile ), 01 Feb, 2019 @ 02:00pm

  Good cause

  A business (which Techdirt is, it's a fiction that exists only on paper) needs good cause -- let's go to physical where unquestioned that YOU have a right to walk around on a business property that invites you (that's a Right to private property which the business has ceded to The Public in hopes of gain), until give CAUSE to be thrown out.

  My understanding is that a business can throw you off their property for any reason as long as that reason doesn't fall afoul of any specific laws. For example, it would be illegal for a business to throw out disabled people because of ADA, but they'd be legally in the clear to throw out left handed people because there isn't any law protecting left handed people. If you have any examples to the contrary, please cite them.

• On the post: US Newspapers Now Salivating Over Bringing A Google Snippet Tax Stateside

  

  Khym Chanur ( profile ), 01 Feb, 2019 @ 01:39pm

  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: How do you "adapt&a

  If news sites are going under I can't see how it's Google's fault when Google is providing them with traffic. And if the solution to them going under is to subsidize them, I don't see why it should be those providing links should be the only ones to do the subsidizing. If you're going to subsidize news sites, you could tax Internet companies in general, or tax ISPS, etc. As for my solution, I can't think of one besides subsidizing.

Next >>