Leigh Beadon 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (6137) comment rss

  • On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt

    Leigh Beadon ( profile ), 23 Sep, 2018 @ 12:28pm

    Re:

    Took me a second but, that's brilliant! Margin problem fixed now though, so everyone else is going to wonder wtf your joke is about. Sorry... ;)

  • On the post: GDPR Being Used To Try To Disappear Public US Court Docket

    Leigh Beadon ( profile ), 21 Sep, 2018 @ 12:39pm

    Sorry about the text issue folks! Fixed now.

  • On the post: Free Speech Pro-Tip: You Can Yell Fire In A Crowded Theatre

    Leigh Beadon ( profile ), 14 Aug, 2018 @ 11:21am

    Re:

    You should consider reading the Popehat post discussing the phrase in more detail.

    The point is that even if it's taken at its most limited meaning which you describe, it still adds nothing to a debate about free speech. It says nothing about limitations on other forms of speech. And invoking it to support calls for other limitations on speech is sloppy and dangerous - as evidenced by its original usage, which was to put someone in jail for distributing pamphlets that opposed the mandatory military draft. Yes, that's the original "yelling fire" - writing a pamphlet that criticizes the government.

  • On the post: In Defense Of Slow News

    Leigh Beadon ( profile ), 14 Aug, 2018 @ 11:08am

    Re:

    Of all the places that incredibly generic phrase shows up, you chose to reference the Mooninites. Hats off to you, sir :)

  • On the post: Platforms, Speech And Truth: Policy, Policing And Impossible Choices

    Leigh Beadon ( profile ), 12 Aug, 2018 @ 09:49pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A Small Matter of Control

    Or look at it this way: How many of the 2-billion Facebook users and the 1.8-billion YouTube users stated in that article overlap? And how many also use one or more of Twitter, Reddit, Tumblr, LinkedIn, Snapchat, or Pinterest on a regular basis? I would estimate that only a very small minority are exclusively Facebook users. So how is that a monopoly?

  • On the post: Platforms, Speech And Truth: Policy, Policing And Impossible Choices

    Leigh Beadon ( profile ), 12 Aug, 2018 @ 09:35pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A Small Matter of Control

    You don't become a monopoly by being big, or by serving a majority of the market. You become a monopoly by being the only provider in the market. Facebook is not the only provider - not even close. People have LOTS of options for everything Facebook does - a few very big ones, dozens of medium-sized ones, and countless small ones. Hell, it seems that today's young people don't even care about Facebook anymore - we're all just a bunch of old folks moaning about a social network that's already out of fashion and stands a good chance of falling from grace within a generation. Remember when MySpace was the undisputed king of social media? Remember when Digg seemed to rule the internet? Where are they now?

  • On the post: Platforms, Speech And Truth: Policy, Policing And Impossible Choices

    Leigh Beadon ( profile ), 12 Aug, 2018 @ 09:00pm

    Re: Re: Re: A Small Matter of Control

    Yet another person listing multiple competing companies and calling them a "monopoly"...

    Haven't you people seen The Simpsons? "Mono means one"!

  • On the post: Platforms, Speech And Truth: Policy, Policing And Impossible Choices

    Leigh Beadon ( profile ), 10 Aug, 2018 @ 09:12pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Wow, you went from zero to full-on-crazy real fast.

    Next time you should actually read what I wrote instead of foaming at the mouth about random nonsense.

  • On the post: Platforms, Speech And Truth: Policy, Policing And Impossible Choices

    Leigh Beadon ( profile ), 10 Aug, 2018 @ 04:13pm

    Re: Re:

    anti-vaxxers, flat-earthers, and various other nutjobs Anti-vaxxers may be idiots and clearly incorrect, but I'm not so sure setting a precedent of "ban people who question the pharmaceutical industry" is a great idea either. If you're banning flat-earthers, are you also banning fundamentalist Christians who believe the earth is 6,000 years old? I mean, that's equally factually incorrect, but I suspect you might get some backlash on that one. And, in general, precisely how many scientists in how many fields is Facebook supposed to employ in order to make these determinations as new claims emerge in the future? let's listen to both sides in Holocaust denial Saying "attempting to ban all holocaust deniers may not be the best solution for various reasons" is not the same thing as saying they deserve your attention or "let's listen to both sides". let's all talk about how Newton was completely wrong about gravity I mean... he sorta was.

  • On the post: Platforms, Speech And Truth: Policy, Policing And Impossible Choices

    Leigh Beadon ( profile ), 09 Aug, 2018 @ 11:12pm

    Re: This is a sincere (without wax) question

    As I suspect you've noticed, the vast majority of comments on this post have not been flagged - and a significant portion of them are from anonymous commenters. We like our open comments. Lots of great discussion takes place in them. It has nothing to do with "appearing open" - this is our community and we like it, including the feature that allows for the flagging of posts from rambling, disingenuous trolls.

    (And by the way, when you have to repeatedly state that your question is sincere, it's a rather good tipoff that you know it's not.)

  • On the post: Platforms, Speech And Truth: Policy, Policing And Impossible Choices

    Leigh Beadon ( profile ), 09 Aug, 2018 @ 08:46pm

    Re:

    You could call that one close, yes, since the direct alternatives to YouTube have not taken off in the same way YouTube did And even that's not entirely true, as both Facebook and Twitter also host videos. Also, Facebook can easily be used as a public microblogging service like Twitter, via public posts and its "subscribers" feature. And Twitter can be used with a private account that only follows friends, with optional access to additional newsfeeds via lists & trending topics, thus making it work much like Facebook. All these services are in direct competition with each other, even though many people use all three.

  • On the post: Platforms, Speech And Truth: Policy, Policing And Impossible Choices

    Leigh Beadon ( profile ), 09 Aug, 2018 @ 08:37pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: No one is forcing anyone to go to Jones social media page

    Facebook is close, if the market is defined as posts between friends with a newsfeed from outside the immediate circle. Well yeah, if you narrowly define a market as a very specific set of features then everything is a monopoly. Subway definitely has a monopoly on restaurants that serve submarine sandwiches alongside wraps and baked cookies. The Cartoon Network has a monopoly on cable television networks that exclusively air animated shows. Dave & Buster's has a monopoly on chain restaurants with multiple card-operated arcade games. Nintendo has a monopoly on family-focused home game consoles with motion controls. And yet all these companies in fact face huge amounts of fierce competition.

  • On the post: Platforms, Speech And Truth: Policy, Policing And Impossible Choices

    Leigh Beadon ( profile ), 09 Aug, 2018 @ 08:07pm

    Re: Re: Whichever of mine, I can't see because censored...

    You've got a word trick there, is all. Ah yes, that awful trick where words have meanings.

  • On the post: Platforms, Speech And Truth: Policy, Policing And Impossible Choices

    Leigh Beadon ( profile ), 09 Aug, 2018 @ 08:02pm

    Re: Re: Re: No one is forcing anyone to go to Jones social media page

    There's a pretty direct connection between Alex Jones, promoting Alex Jones on Twitter and Facebook, and some real meatspace harm. I didn't say there wasn't, did I? Not sure if this is the comment you meant to reply to, but my snarky mention of the Beatles as a trio was simply pointing out the inherent absurdity of listing three companies and saying they are a "monopoly" since that, y'know, is by definition not what that word means.

  • On the post: Platforms, Speech And Truth: Policy, Policing And Impossible Choices

    Leigh Beadon ( profile ), 09 Aug, 2018 @ 08:00pm

    Re: You've put your finger on something...

    OK, by putting everyone in their filter bubble, Facebook and Twitter have been able to avoid the business issue....or is there more to it??? Or am I just not looking on a long enough timescale? I think the "filter bubble" aspect is somewhat overstated. The analysis does diverge a bit for Twitter and Facebook though. For Twitter, a huge part of the appeal and core function of the site is the ability to connect with people outside your immediate circle - inasmuch as it has filter bubbles, they are extremely porous. This is reinforced by nearly every aspect of the design of the site: retweets, subtweets, notifications of what people in your network like or follow, hashtags that link to an open feed of other people from all across twitter, prominent trending topic links that do the same, etc. Moreover, core to Twitter's appeal is public figures or just interesting people maintaining a public presence. Twitter and its userbase do not benefit if more people make use of its "filter bubble"-ish capabilities like having a private account or muting all replies. So to take a specific and widespread example, there is a huge problem with constant and frankly insane harassment of women who have a large twitter presence, especially in certain industries like game design. They face an unduly disproportionate amount of aggression - including coordinated harassment campaigns employing tactics to get around the muting/blocking features that exist. This has driven many women off the platform. Twitter doesn't want this. They could also switch to a private account, and put themselves in a stronger filter bubble, but Twitter doesn't want this either - nor do they. Facebook is somewhat different because it has many different usage patterns and a larger "private, immediate circle" aspect in some respects. However, interconnection is still a big deal: public pages and events are very important to Facebook, and important to its advertising business model. Facebook provides lots of routes out of your "bubble", showing you popular pages or those your friends interact with, etc. It is also home to several large and more public general-interest forums, such as the Facebook pages of major news organizations, popular TV shows, etc. - and it does not want these places ruined by toxicity either, because then these all-important large organizations might pack up and leave. And that's just the briefest look at these platforms and how people use them. I won't even get into YouTube, iTunes, Steam, Wordpress, Wikipedia, app stores - all platforms facing these same challenges and all with unique needs. The whole idea of "filter bubbles" is real and it is very much a factor and a force in how we communicate and consume information in 2018, but it is not an absolute or even necessarily the most dominant trend - and it's not an automatic solution for the challenges of Twitter or Facebook.

  • On the post: Platforms, Speech And Truth: Policy, Policing And Impossible Choices

    Leigh Beadon ( profile ), 09 Aug, 2018 @ 07:36pm

    Re: No one is forcing anyone to go to Jones social media page

    Twitter, Facebook and YouTube are a monopoly And The Beatles were a mighty fine trio.

  • On the post: Platforms, Speech And Truth: Policy, Policing And Impossible Choices

    Leigh Beadon ( profile ), 09 Aug, 2018 @ 05:59pm

    Re: I've said it before...

    If you are not a social media user, then you lack the experience of how certain kinds of content can proliferate and turn a platform into a place nobody wants to be.

    And yes, it's true that "people who don't like or are offended by someone's post won't be back" and... here's the thing: social media companies want users, they don't want people to leave and never come back. And they also want to be a place frequented by celebrities, experts, politicians, interesting people - because that's good for their business and their brand.

    So when persistent toxic behavior by some subgroup of users is proliferating and driving away other users, especially high-quality users, it becomes a business issue for the platform to figure out how to foster a better community.

    Plus at the end of the day, some people don't want to be the owners and operators of a forum overrun with holocaust denial or misogynistic harassment or racist insults or what-have you. Many talented people don't want to work at a place like that. Companies and advertisers don't want to partner or be associated with a place like that.

    As this post points out, this doesn't mean the solution is "just try to ban all the bad stuff". But, sorry, your "grow the fuck up" attitude isn't going to fix anything either, or change this situation at all. And if you want to see what a totally unmoderated social media platform looks like, try signing up for gab.ai

  • On the post: Platforms, Speech And Truth: Policy, Policing And Impossible Choices

    Leigh Beadon ( profile ), 09 Aug, 2018 @ 02:15pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Additionally, it was more common to use paid email software. The email capabilities were an important selling feature of Lotus Notes for enterprise users, and Outlook was an important selling feature of the early MS Office suites for home users.

  • On the post: Platforms, Speech And Truth: Policy, Policing And Impossible Choices

    Leigh Beadon ( profile ), 09 Aug, 2018 @ 02:08pm

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

    (p.s. I do acknowledge that you are not actually arguing for these automatic matching restrictions on Facebook to the gov't - I'm just attempting to highlight how messy things become when people start confidently applying this "public square" language to Facebook. I just don't think the two are so easily comparable, for a whole host of reasons.)

  • On the post: Platforms, Speech And Truth: Policy, Policing And Impossible Choices

    Leigh Beadon ( profile ), 09 Aug, 2018 @ 02:03pm

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

    The public parts of Facebook, like the Infowars pages, are like a public square. Wouldn't that also mean that all public page operators themselves are barred from moderating content or blocking users from their pages? You can organize a rally in the public square and invite who you want, but you can't prevent other members of the public from attending.

Next >>