Koby’s Techdirt Profile


About Koby

Koby’s Comments comment rss

  • May 10th, 2021 @ 8:51am

    Subject To Review

    Perhaps someday there could be a merger review system. It seems that many mergers involve companies making promises as a condition for approval. A review process is needed to revisit the merger, and determine whether what was said during the merger was all a bunch of hocus. And if so, then the merger is retroactively rejected.

  • May 7th, 2021 @ 7:46pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Feature, Not A Bug

    You left out the end of that sentence "... who were violating the rules and policies of the site which was providing them a space, and therefore were removed."

    If you are correct, then it's no longer a First Amendment issue, instead just a rules issue. Similar to how corporations have no first amendment defense against things such as discrimination, the speech of the users is not the speech of the platform.

    That's exactly how the free market works, Koby. You think the gov't should force them to do otherwise?

    Again, there is no free market when the corporations decide against tens of millions of their own users. But corporations running a public utility should be forced to play by the same rules: no abridgement of free speech. Just as companies can be bound by mandates over who receives service, and who can be disconnected, the government can do the same for the network service. Particularly since it's a near-monopoly at the moment.

  • May 7th, 2021 @ 5:04pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Feature, Not A Bug

    No one's being censored, Koby. Some of your friends are assholes. And some people don't want to associate with assholes.

    Those that were censored were amongst the most popular, with growing followings and channels. People voluntarily subscribed. Big tech could not allow the free market to decide. The users didn't decide to disassociate, the corporations did.

  • May 7th, 2021 @ 2:44pm

    Re: Re: Feature, Not A Bug

    I support the general principle of the 1st Amendment, in that political speech is protected. You only oppose the idea of government being unable to engage in censorship, while supporting the concept that corporations are able to dictate free speech. Socialists have been searching for a way to short circuit the bill of rights, and now they have found their way: team up with the big tech companies, and have the corporations accomplish that which they only wished they could do.

  • May 7th, 2021 @ 11:41am

    Feature, Not A Bug

    The issue all of us keep pointing out is not that 230 is perfect, but that every suggestion for changing it will create all sorts of problems that make the internet much worse.

    Many of the suggestions offered involve allowing political speech from all sources. On this basic point, there is not agreement. The pro 230 people view political censorship as a good thing, and limited moderation to quash profanity and spam as bad, specifically because it permits speech with which they disagree. We disagree on what will make things better or worse.

  • May 6th, 2021 @ 3:32pm

    Competition Wins Again

    40 years ago, video games looked rather primitive compared to what we can experience today. Not just in terms of graphics, or audio, or even gameplay features, but also the terms of pricing. It is my understanding that there was a crash of the video game market back in 1983, which was blamed on a slew of low quality games. Buyers became disinterested after paying good money for bad products. Today, consumers can experience some games before they pay for it, thereby avoiding the problem. It's a clear win for purchasers, thanks to intense competition.

  • May 6th, 2021 @ 6:33am


    It doesn't look like it will happen anytime soon here in the United States. The facial recognition systems are so bad that it's kind of worthless. Take the Marilyn Harper/Nancy Pelosi laptop FBI raid from last week. The feds realized that they messed up the facial recognition thing so badly that they didn't bother to arrest her. Over in Soviet Russia, on the other hand, the authorities probably don't care who they arrest.

  • May 5th, 2021 @ 5:40am

    Re: Re:

    People who are asked to leave mainstream communities because they're considered toxic to those communities are unlikely to be attractive by nature to the mainstream when they set up their own spaces.

    Except that Trump had millions upon millions of followers, and Parler was the most popular app prior to them being deplatformed. The tech monopolies were displeased that ordinary people were subscribing.

    You don't get to demand that others let you use their property just because it's hard for you to set up another platform.

    We don't setup parallel electrical grids or phone networks. It's a public platform utility at this point, subject to common carrier rules. Even if alternatives are possible, such as connecting a generator to an appliance, or a two way radio connection is available, it's still a public network. And these utilities can be privately owned and maintained, yet obligated to allow public access.

  • May 4th, 2021 @ 11:52pm

    Re: Re: Re: Koby? Koby? Koby?

    Which makes it lucky that creating a new website to act as a platform on the internet is nothing like doing that, and only smooth brained types like yourself would consider it remotely similar.

    One blog site does not equate to a social media platform, not by a long shot.

    The january events proved that if you attempt to use existing networks and ISPs without an airtight contract, the tech monopolies WILL collude, and will work to censor you if they disagree with your political stance. To protect freedom, it looks like a parallel system will need to be constructed, almost from the ground up.

  • May 4th, 2021 @ 11:34pm

    Re: Re: Re: Koby? Koby? Koby?

    Am I being censored by not being allow to post messages on his new site?

    No, his site is not a platform, it's a publication.

  • May 4th, 2021 @ 7:43pm

    Re: Koby? Koby? Koby?

    Overall a bad thing. You shouldn't need to invent a whole new internet just to enjoy the 1st Amendment. But it looks like that might be what it takes to protect freedom, so some people are leading the way by sidestepping the censorship of big tech by starting from scratch.

    Also, it doesn't appear to have any moderation rules, because he's the only one doing the talking. In other words: it's a publication and not a platform. Section 230 is completely unnecessary for his site at the moment.

  • May 4th, 2021 @ 12:34pm

    Must Have Been A Great Interview

    It's more profitable to heavily market Hawley and enjoy the resulting controversy than it is to do the right thing and not platform his dangerous lies at all. The age-old internet concept "don't feed the trolls" isn't adhered to because adhering to it harms profits.

    I have to wonder how badly the Amazon Post is hemorrhaging cash, if they're willing to stir up the pot in exchange for some readership. I'm not really hearing anything wrong with the talk that he gave, only character assassination for past policy disagreements. I guess the leftists don't want a free press; they just want an echo chamber, even if it drives them into bankruptcy again.

  • Apr 30th, 2021 @ 1:05pm

    Re: Inconsistency is thy name

    It fits because of what you just said-- the theme parks are publishers, and not platforms.

  • Apr 30th, 2021 @ 11:41am

    (untitled comment)

    bills that sought to force social media companies to host all speech and not moderate.

    We need to change that to "not moderate based on political affiliation". Currently, it does not appear that the Florida theme parks are censoring visitors to their websites based on politics. Forcing businesses to not discriminate based on certain other behaviors, such as sexual orientation, familial status, and religion, have been found constitutional.

    The good news is that the state of Florida has also recently (yesterday) passed a voter ID law, which is expected to be signed by the governor. This means that SJWs at the big tech companies will advocate for a boycott on the state, thereby preventing social media platforms from taking advantage of the loophole.

  • Apr 30th, 2021 @ 7:18am

    Cursed Asset

    AOL is approaching a kind of Hope Diamond cursed status. I can't believe anyone would want to pay billions for it.

  • Apr 29th, 2021 @ 4:59pm

    Re: Re: Don't Spread Misery

    It's very simple: people in their private lives and in their personal time can say whatever they want. When you're at work, tho, you're expected to do work. Your employer can tell you what to say as a condition of employment. It's not a free speech issue; it's a matter of business survival.

  • Apr 29th, 2021 @ 2:31pm

    Don't Spread Misery

    Numerous entertainment activities are enjoyable because they are an escape. Leftist puritans have sought to politicize everything, out of fear that some folks out there might be happy.

    If SJWs are constantly making everything political, then it sounds like having no politics is a superior solution. Let the woke mob angst over the latest microaggression on their personal accounts and time, while leaving the rest of the employees alone to do some actual work.

  • Apr 28th, 2021 @ 6:47pm

    Re: Re: Thy name is hypocrisy

    He didn't? Funny, he ragged on corporations daring to speak their mind and how terrible it was that they could say bad things about politicians. There aren't many ways to interpret that. I thought you where for free-speech? Oh..I see, my mistake, it seems you are only for free-speech you agree with.

    Ragging on corporations isn't anti-free speech. Pointing out that corporations are acting in a slimy manner isn't an attack on free speech. Criticism is a right that is guaranteed by free speech, not an attack on free speech. As I've said many times before, the solution to others saying things with which you disagree is to talk back against it. I really hope you try to look at the policy positions.

    I see you have labeled them correctly, populist. Populists tend to fuck things up and damage the economy which usually take decades to fix.

    I'll take being a populist over being a corporatist any day of the week. I'm not saying that you're a corporatist, but I'm proud to be on the side that corporations hate the most. The economic standard of living of society has already been heavily skewed out of proportion because of corporate power over the past few decades. The damage is already here. Support dialing them back.

  • Apr 28th, 2021 @ 4:10pm

    Got Triggered

    Got that? Political views that go against Rubio are "toxic waste" and therefore must be regulated.

    I always knew you were a lefist, because you can't help but get triggered anytime an elected official insults SJW woke corporatists. Thanks again for the confirmation.

    Anyhow, it's a little disingenuous for you to say this, because I know that you're going to equate the term "regulated" with "policy positions on free speech". However, Rubio never advocated for policy positions regarding free speech in the op-ed.

    Instead, I love the sound of the policy positions that he DOES mention. I do like the idea of increasing taxes and imposing tariffs on corporations that manufacture products overseas and steal American jobs. I do think that being able to form a union is a right, and corporations should have to operate on a level playing field globally with regard to labor. And perhaps corporations that cooperate with the Chinese government, after what the Chinese government did to the Uighurs, should face some sort of economic sanctions. Those are some policies that I can definitely get behind. I'd love to see Rubio and any other populist-wing Republicans work together with Democrats to make it happen.

  • Apr 28th, 2021 @ 8:37am

    Re: Section 230 Protects Anti-Semites as well!

    Correct, section 230 applies in this case because noone is being prevented from speaking. If anything, it is the plaintiff that is trying to suppress speech.

More comments from Koby >>

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