We’ve got one more cross-post episode for you today, then next week we’re back with a brand new discussion. Recently, Mike joined the Daily Beast’s The New Abnormal podcast with host Andy Levy for a conversation about the big news from last week: Biden signing a bill that will ban TikTok in the US if owner ByteDance doesn’t divest from it. The full episode of The New Abnormal covers other topics as well, or you can listen to Mike’s segment isolated here on this week’s episode.

Follow the Techdirt Podcast on Soundcloud, subscribe via Apple Podcasts or Spotify, or grab the RSS feed. You can also keep up with all the latest episodes right here on Techdirt.

This week, our first place winner on the insightful side is an anonymous comment about link taxes:

It seems to me that the best way to expose the link tax for what it is (a money grab), is to educate the legislators that a news site (in fact, any site) can use a robots.txt file to deny entry by any/some/all-but other sites on the entire web.

Then, when a news site is asked “Why don’t you use a robots.txt file to keep Google from linking to you?”, the answer will be telling. It’ll either be a) “We didn’t know about that (or some variation, such as it’s too hard, or it doesn’t work, etc.)”; or b) “But we want social media sites to link to us!”.

Given that second answer, it’s now apparent that someone did some excruciatingly bad parenting when raising their child during the phase where they should’ve been teaching said child that one must pay for the things that one wants. In no reality of which I’ve ever heard does one get to be paid for what one wants…. apparently except in Murdoch’s Bizzaro World.

Under normal economic theory, an exchange is defined as something of value goes from each party to the other party, not both things of value go to only one party. Never mind the business of fucking up of the internet, this is even worse than “New Math”. Given half a chance, this “New Economics” will tear down and/or reverse everything we’ve built as as civilization for the past several millennia.

Anybody who says otherwise is accepting bribes to legislate for link taxes, period.

In second place, it’s Samuel Abram with a take on the TikTok ban:

Another point of its lack of constitutionality

I would say the TikTok ban is not only unconstitutional on First
Amendment grounds, but that it’s also a Bill of Attainder: It punishes a
[corporate] person through congress without a trial.

For editor’s choice on the insightful side, we start out with MrWilson offering a not-unreasonably cynical take on the first place winning comment:

They’re not interested in learning more and many of them already know better. They want to be educated in how to win more elections and get more campaign donations. Elected officials who care to know what they’re legislating about would already have educated themselves or sought out expert advice.

Next, it’s TheDumberHalf with a comment about Mike’s review of Jonathan Haidts new book:

Every Day

My kid comes home from school talking about the world ending. Climate changes and war just support her depressive outlook. On top if all this, she knows that getting a well paying job will be difficult at best.

I’m not going to lie to her and tell her everything will be sunshine and rainbows. Her classmates are just as sobering.

We really screwed this up for our kids.

Over on the funny side, our first place winner is Toom1275 with a comment about Texas AG Ken Paxton:

• Demonstrates complete and utter incapacity for comprehending anything law-related
• Demonstrates complete and utter incapacity for comprehending anythung else, either. (AKA is a Republican)
• Delusionally declares losses as victories
• Irrationally simps for E.L.O.N.

Mr. Paxton, do you happen to hatepost as “Matthew” on Techdirt?

In second place, it’s MrWilson again, this time with a comment about Italy restricting “Milano” vehicle production to Italy:

You can call it a Milano if it’s made in Italy. If it’s made anywhere else, it’s just a Sparkling Automobile.

For editor’s choice on the funny side, we start out with an anonymous comment about the effort to extend copyright to codes that are incorporated into the law:

Oh©,© for© Dogs© sake©!© Just© copyright© everything© and© be© done© with© it©.©

Finally, it’s another anonymous commenter, with a cheat sheet for the review of Haidt’s book:

The TL;DR of the pared-down review, for those in a hurry?

“Oh jeez, this asshole? Again?!?”

That’s all for this week, folks!

Five Years Ago

This week in 2019, another attempt to hold Twitter responsible for terrorist attacks was tossed out of court (but it didn’t stop the trend of rushing to blame social media for every tragedy) while we got a look behind the scenes of how Facebook dealt with the Christchurch shooting. Another Hollywood company filed a takedown against TorrentFreak, the Oscars declined to ban Netflix despite whining from Spielberg, and NBC Universal was clashing with Emilio Estevez over public domain footage. We also saw a very silly copyright fight over banana costumes.

Ten Years Ago

This week in 2014, a Homeland Security advisor was warning parents that mouthing off is a sign a teenager might become a terrorist, while James Clapper was begging students to stop seeing Ed Snowden as a hero, and the DOJ was complaining about needing a warrant to search a mobile phone. We looked at the sense of entitlement among copyright maximalists, while the Supreme Court heard the oral arguments in the Aereo case, and we pointed out how people were treating the company’s adherence to copyright law as if it was a circumvention of copyright law. And, in a prime example of the revolving door, the MPAA hired the chief USTR negotiator behind the IP chapters in ACTA and the TPP.

Fifteen Years Ago

This week in 2009, we wrote about why Google never should have caved on book scanning, while journalists were demanding it also cave on paying newspapers. BT began blocking access to The Pirate Bay, which mostly just further boosted the profile of the site, while some journalists were finally realizing that it’s just a search engine. A file sharing admin in Spain was sent to jail despite not breaking the law, the EU approved a copyright term extension, and the Real DVD copying case was off to an inauspicious start. Also, an era of internet history came to an end with Yahoo announcing that it would be shutting down GeoCities.

This week, we’ve got another cross-post episode for you. Mike recently appeared on the Sidebar podcast from Courthouse News as part of an episode taking an in-depth look at why copyright is actually the biggest free speech restriction in the US, and the various questions, implications, and problems that arise from this. You can listen to the whole thing here on this week’s episode.

Follow the Techdirt Podcast on Soundcloud, subscribe via Apple Podcasts or Spotify, or grab the RSS feed. You can also keep up with all the latest episodes right here on Techdirt.

This week, both our winners on the insightful side come in response to our post about Google blocking news sites in California because of bad link tax laws, and specifically in reply to a commenter who suggested the link tax would just be “Google giving back” money. In first place, it’s an anonymous reply:

What. Any money google earns through ads on their own products is purely from value of googles services. The links the the news sites do not contain the news itself. That’s like saying the yellow pages is pizza. And Chinese food. And Mexican.

In case this is not blindly obvious: that’s bat shit crazy.

The news sites have their content. And google is only making it easy for people to get to it. If the news sites can’t make any money off it: That’s like Restaurants blaming the yellow pages for them going out of business.

And in second place, it’s Stephen T. Stone making a different version of the point:

Irrelevant. To charge for links is to undercut the basic functionality of the Internet for the sake of profit. Google, Twitter, Facebook, or any other interactive web service or website should have no obligation to pay for the right to link to a newspaper’s website.

For editor’s choice on the insightful side, we start out with one more comment on that post, this time from another anonymous commenter making a very simple and important point:

Taxes disincentivize the taxed behavior. If you tax links, you’re disincentivizing linking. This is not rocket surgery.

Next, it’s still another anonymous commenter, this time on our post about the possibility of a TikTok ban, in reply to a commenter trying to shift the burden of proof and demand a “debunking” of fears about TikTok:

You can’t “debunk a concern”. People will have a moral panic over whatever they like in service of any number of agendas.

The actual problem, though, is that’s all you have: Concern, and claims. Bring evidence of privacy issues unique to TikTok, and/or influence issues caused by TikTok (while not ignoring the First Amendment). Then others can support or debunk your evidence with additional evidence. That’s how this works. Make a testable claim, then test it, then show your work and the evidence produced by testing. It is no one else’s job to counter things that don’t exist, but lucky you, articles like the one above are already doing just that.

Over on the funny side, our first place winner is NotTheMomma with a comment about other child safety laws that would block sites:

Come on now, Mike, this will work, look at how prohibition went? Most of these people pushing for this were alive then.

In second place, it’s bonk with another comment about TikTok panic, and people comparing it to fentanyl:

I heard from a friend’s friend that they had a brother that was so addicted to social media he died. It took the paramedics ten minutes to dislodge the smartphone he had snorted, but he had already perished at that point.

For editor’s choice on the funny side, we’ve got two more anonymous comments. The first is another response to “TikTok as fentanyl”:

Projection?

… I’m starting to think that the folks in charge are just projecting their own insecurities brought on by years of just believing whatever entity was waving money in their face.

Finally, it’s a comment about the rise of “chemtrail” legislation:

WHEREAS, it is documented, among those within the pseudoscience of bullshitery, that the Earth is flat, and that the Earth is at the center of the universe.

WHEREAS, the constant Pi is commonly referred to as an irrational number, it will from now on be known as 3.

We have the best science, no one has better science than we do. Did you land on the moon? No? Hahaha

That’s all for this week, folks!

Five Years Ago

This week in 2019, Starz was going after tweets about a TorrentFreak article, then issuing a laughably unbelievable excuse and apology. The EU nations, as expected, rubber stamped the copyright directive, while the Parliament moved on to the terrorist content regulations and quickly pushed those through too. We learned some more about ICE’s fake university sting operation, while Motel 6 was set to pay out another $12 million for handing guest info to ICE. And Facebook and a very, very bad week on the privacy front, while the Sixth Circuit dumped a lawsuit attempting to hold Twitter responsible for the Pulse nightclub shooting.

Ten Years Ago

This week in 2014, we looked at the lessons from the suspicion and denial around the NSA and the Heartbleed vulnerability, and how the agency could certainly still be using it. The Guardian and the Washington Post won Pulitzers for their Snowden coverage, leading to some backlash that got pretty bizarre. Hollywood was pressuring Australia to make ISPs act as copyright cops, Eli Lilley was pressuring Canada to approve a patent on a useless drug, and General Mills was trying out quite a legal theory about what you can agree to by “Liking” a page on Facebook.

Fifteen Years Ago

This week in 2009, Google turned off uploads in Korea rather than abide by a requirement to identify and disclose users, some new research was being misrepresented to claim that “Twitter makes you immoral”, and there was one of many examples of Amazon’s DRM turning a Kindle into a paperweight. An activist group was using bogus DMCA claims to take down videos exposing its use of fake “concerned citizens”, while a news station was doing the same to hide the fact that it fell for an April Fool’s prank. And the Coldplay/Satriani copyright fight continued, with Coldplay’s filing that denied any copying.

Last week, the House Energy and Commerce Committee had a hearing all about Section 230, in which they didn’t even attempt to find a witness pointing out its benefits. Among the many organizations that could have provided that vital perspective is the Wikimedia Foundation (as seen in three excellent posts on Medium), and this week we’re joined by Rebecca MacKinnon, Wikimedia’s VP of Global Advocacy and long-time open internet defender, to talk about why the hearing was bad and Section 230 is very, very important.

Follow the Techdirt Podcast on Soundcloud, subscribe via Apple Podcasts or Spotify, or grab the RSS feed. You can also keep up with all the latest episodes right here on Techdirt.

This week, our first place winner on the insightful side is Bloof, responding to a complaint that our negative coverage of Elon Musk prevents us covering other completely made-up transphobic stuff:

The difference is that the things Elon does is actually happeni9ng, while the things you feel we -should- be concerned about are just 4chan bigot grievance madlibs that have passed through the far right think tank filter. It’s as real as litter trays in school for furries, but boy does it sound good as a thing that is totally happening that people should be mad at… Except whenever people ask for proof, there is none, if there were it would be EVERYWHERE, not just confined to far right blogs, youtube ranters and assholes in comment sections, shithead TERFs at the NYT would be eagerly and thoughtlessly signalboosting it.

There is nothing, you have nothing but insincere shrieks of ‘think of the children’, the same kids you will eagerly see married off to people three times their ages the second they hit puberty should your theocratic dreams ever come to pass. If it ever did, you’d still be a mad incel, angry at some other group because nobody wants to be with a bitter husk, you’d be about as likely to get fucked in that universe as you are to have Elon love you back in this one.

In second place, it’s Strawb responding to the assertion that a content removal demand by a Brazilian Supreme Court justice isn’t a slippery slope:

Yes, it is. Just because you like the outcome doesn’t mean that attempted government censorship is suddenly a good thing.

For editor’s choice on the insightful side, we start out with one more comment about Musk from Strawb, this time reacting to the wild deposition transcript of him and his lawyer:

At this point, I can’t tell if Musk is just sort of a black hole of stupidity, attracting other idiots, or if his own stupidity slowly infects the ones that orbit him.

Next, it’s Cat_Daddy with some clarification on the history of SOPA:

The issue with SOPA wasn’t that it ensured that copyright issues on platforms have to be blocked, it insured that entire websites have to be blocked. That’s like saying YouTube should be blocked because of its copyright infringements. It was a case of copyright maximalism then and it’s a case of copyright maximalism now. And it’s extremely disappointing that Hollywood has learned nothing.

Over on the funny side, our first place winner is an anonymous comment about AI-powered fake copyright trolling threat letters that were actually just an SEO scam:

You people think it’s funny!

But here’s a prime example of AI taking jobs from poor, honest, hardworking, SEO scammers like Jhon Smith!

In second place, it’s an anonymous rejoinder to Musk’s claim that “principles matter more than profit”:

*Offer valid for far-right principles only

For editor’s choice on the funny side, we start out with an anonymous response to a trollish interloper:

This is Discussion, sir! If you want an argument, please proceed to 12A, down the hall.

Finally, it’s Cat_Daddy again with a comment about the police chief being hailed as a hero for crashing into a car while fleeing a shooting:

He bravely ran away…

That’s all for this week, folks!

Five Years Ago

This week in 2019, Colorado’s net neutrality bill was heading to the governor’s desk while Mitch McConnell was promising a House net neutrality bill would never get past the Senate. The UK proposed a ridiculous plan to fine internet companies for vaguely defined “harmful content” while the European Parliament was moving forward with its regulation of terrorist content (which apparently included much of the Internet Archive). This was also the week that Devin Nunes’s campaign against an internet cow kicked into high gear, followed by him quickly admitting that it was all about fishing for journalists’ sources.

Ten Years Ago

This week in 2014, while Mike Rogers was still pushing the idea that Ed Snowden was a Russian spy, and Michael Hayden was having some anger issues, we learned that the NSA spied on Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, and that the agency was (according to Snowden) lying when they say he didn’t try to raise concerns through the proper channels. But the Supreme Court was still not ready to hear a case challenging NSA surveillance. Meanwhile, the MPAA joined the pile-on and sued Megaupload, and their lawsuit was (unsurprisingly) another broadside attack on the internet.

Fifteen Years Ago

This week in 2009, a dangerous appeals court ruling opened Google up to trademark liability in AdWords, but we also saw a rare example of a sensible AdWords trademark lawsuit. The Associated Press announced plans to sue news aggregators, Senators were looking to ban SMS spam, and Wizards of the Coast got in one of its many conflicts with Dungeons & Dragons fans. U2’s manager was still crusading against the internet, while Sweden’s anti-piracy law boosted the market for encryption technology. And we saw a couple interesting copyright articles, one showing just how ridiculously confusing it can get, and one questioning how it gets around the First Amendment.

One very important thing to understand in the conversation about online speech is that there are many different kinds of online communities, big and small, and they all have their own needs when it comes to rules and governance. This fact is a key element of a new book, Governable Spaces: Democratic Design for Online Life by media studies professor Nathan Schneider, and this week Nathan joins the podcast to talk about how democracy does (and doesn’t) manifest in online communities.

Follow the Techdirt Podcast on Soundcloud, subscribe via Apple Podcasts or Spotify, or grab the RSS feed. You can also keep up with all the latest episodes right here on Techdirt.