Mike Masnick 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (23099) comment rss

  • On the post: If Creators Suing AI Companies Over Copyright Win, It Will Further Entrench Big Tech

    Mike Masnick ( profile ), 04 Dec, 2023 @ 11:59am

    “Let companies rip off your work, or else only Big Tech will be able to rip off your work” is not a compelling argument.
    Well, your first (and largest) problem is assuming "fair use" is the equivalent of "ripping off your work." Fix that and the rest of your confusion might melt away.

  • On the post: Elon Musk Says Only Those Who Pay Him Deserve Free Speech

    Mike Masnick ( profile ), 02 Dec, 2023 @ 01:08am

    I don’t get it. It’s a private business. He can do what he wants. There is no “Freedom of speech”. Musk owns the site, he can do what he feels like.
    That is absolutely correct. And it's what we have always argued. The point though is that he keeps framing his decisions as being about freedom of speech, and acting as if the similar (though more principled and based on clear policies) of the former management were "against free speech" and that was why he had to buy it. Of course he has every right to moderate however he wants. I'm just pointing out the sheer hypocrisy of pretending that he's more supportive of "free speech" than any other website owner that enforces their rules.

  • On the post: Musk’s Faulty Vision Of ‘Free Speech’ Is Driving Speech Off ExTwitter

    Mike Masnick ( profile ), 29 Nov, 2023 @ 03:26pm

    Defamation law is not the government regulating speech, it is private parties suing each other for damages over willful lies. The two things weren’t even thought of as related at all before Sullivan, which was rank judicial activism.
    I already debunked this a few weeks ago, and yet you repeat it. Schenk (which happened decades prior to NYT v. Sullivan) made it clear that defamation was a 1st Amendment issue. Why do you continue to lie so boldly when it's so easy to prove you wrong? I asked you last time to point to a SINGLE lawyer saying that defamation is not a 1st Amendment issue and you could not. So come on. Point to a single lawyer who says what you're saying. Go ahead. I waited quite a while on that last post. I'll keep waiting. Because you and I both know that (1) you can't because (2) you're wrong and (3) it's embarrassing for you.

  • On the post: Musk’s Faulty Vision Of ‘Free Speech’ Is Driving Speech Off ExTwitter

    Mike Masnick ( profile ), 29 Nov, 2023 @ 03:21pm

    We can only have a “free marketplace of ideas” by restricting ideas.
    This is not what anyone said. The issue is simply that if you allow those who harass, abuse, and bully those into silence (something you're super familiar with, right? https://www.thecut.com/2016/12/oregon-man-sentenced-to-jail-under-revenge-porn-law.html ) then you're not creating a marketplace of ideas. The issue is that any marketplace has rules, and those who break them are asked to find somewhere else to go. And that's what people are saying here. For any conversation to exist, there need to be some basic rules, and those who follow can be expelled from those particular converstions. This is why I support the protocol approach. Let people speak, but that doesn't mean they get to be part of conversations where they break the rules. That way, you open up space for everyone to actually participate, and not be bullied, harassed, threatened, and silenced like you did when you uploaded sex tapes of your ex to pornographic sites.

  • On the post: Musk’s Faulty Vision Of ‘Free Speech’ Is Driving Speech Off ExTwitter

    Mike Masnick ( profile ), 29 Nov, 2023 @ 03:12pm

    "leading in traffic generation via Google’s top 100 organic search results" That... does not mean that exTwitter "surpassed Instagram and FB" it's creating a narrowly constrained set (the top 100 organic Google search results) and saying that Twitter was a getting more traffic than FB and Instagram, which... isn't a surprise given that Google doesn't scan Instagram/FB nearly as much as it does ExTwitter, which is much more public. You're looking at a narrow, meaningless slice of things. Also, there's no source data on the original claims anyway.

  • On the post: Musk’s Faulty Vision Of ‘Free Speech’ Is Driving Speech Off ExTwitter

    Mike Masnick ( profile ), 29 Nov, 2023 @ 11:52am

    Lol. ExTwitter absolutely did not surpass FB or Instagram. How gullible are you?

  • On the post: Sarah Silverman’s AI Case Isn’t Going Very Well Either

    Mike Masnick ( profile ), 16 Nov, 2023 @ 05:55pm

    Justin Hughes being a well known copyright maximalist, who has never seen a copyright law he didn't want to extend further, and who regularly argues against fair use.

  • On the post: But What Do We Do If Google Is Legitimately Just A Better Search Engine?

    Mike Masnick ( profile ), 14 Nov, 2023 @ 05:22pm

    Yeah. I'm impressed with Kagi so far but it requires a monthly fee.

  • On the post: But What Do We Do If Google Is Legitimately Just A Better Search Engine?

    Mike Masnick ( profile ), 14 Nov, 2023 @ 01:44pm

    I don't think there should be a "too big to fail." If Google fails, so be it. The underlying question to me, is how do we get more sustainable competitors.

  • On the post: The US Healthcare Scam Illustrated In The Impossibility Of Getting A Bill For Five Stitches

    Mike Masnick ( profile ), 13 Nov, 2023 @ 02:52pm

    I know this doesn’t negate your point, but is $65 pre- or post-insurance claim? Sounds like you are trying to exaggerate.
    Yes, to be fair, that's post insurance. The insurance company paid $260. I paid $65. So, the total was really $325.

  • On the post: Human Beings Are Not Puppets, And We Should Probably Stop Acting Like They Are

    Mike Masnick ( profile ), 07 Nov, 2023 @ 08:39am

    Matthew, your problem is that you've misread what I'm saying for years, that when I continue to say the same thing I've said all along, you're too thick to realize that I've been consistent I have never been in favor of "proactive censorship of misinformation." I have literally said, for years, that focusing on speech suppression is unlikely to work and often counterproductive. Your problem is that you refuse to acknowledge what I do talk about is (1) private companies have a right to moderate however they want and (2) trust & safety involves a ton of things that have nothing to do with taking down speech, but rather using other methods to keep a platform safe. My concern with Musk is that he, like you, stupidly doesn't understand that trust & safety isn't about speech suppression (or, rather, when it is, it's bound to fail).

    You like viewpoint censorship, in the name of “misinformation” or otherwise, and you continue to lie about both that and government involvement in it.
    This is just flat out false. I don't know why you continue to pretend I say stuff I've never said, but it's likely the same reason that you've misread multiple other things, including the twitter files, the "evidence" of US gov't censorship, and important cases, and defamation law. It's because you're just dumber than a fucking rock.

  • On the post: ExTwitter Admits Elon Has Cut 56% Of The Value Of The Company; Fidelity Says It’s Actually Worth Even Less

    Mike Masnick ( profile ), 04 Nov, 2023 @ 12:32am

    Nah, I find the answer “SCOTUS before Sullivan” (fine, they’re Irishing wrong) perfectly satisfactory. Lawyers are bound by precedent. Nonetheless, the association did not exist before that point.
    I mean, it literally did. Schenk discusses it nearly 50 years earlier.
    The number of lawyers prior to Sullivan who thought defamation had nothing to do wit the 1A is effectively the sum of all lawyers existing prior to Sullivan.
    Again, Schenk proves you're wrong. But, even if you were right, you could produce a clear statement of someone saying that defamation was not a 1st amendment issue. So I'm still waiting. It would be easy to prove me wrong if "all lawyers existing prior to Sullivan" agreed with you. So, go ahead. Prove it. It's so easy. If you're correct. But you're not. So you can't. Because you're a fool and every single person knows it.

  • On the post: ExTwitter Admits Elon Has Cut 56% Of The Value Of The Company; Fidelity Says It’s Actually Worth Even Less

    Mike Masnick ( profile ), 03 Nov, 2023 @ 02:21pm

    That did not answer my question. Find me a SINGLE 1st Amendment lawyer who says that defamation is not a 1st Amendment issue. Just one. "The Supreme Court before Sullivan" (not "O'Sullivan" you ignorant buffoon) is not an answer. Also, the Sullivan case did not establish defamation as a 1st Amendment issue. It was seen as such before. I mean, JFC, while the Schenk case (which was later overturned) went against Schenk, it wasn't because "defamation isn't a 1st Amendment issue," but because the court recognized "seditious libel" as an EXCEPTION to the 1st Amendment in cases of "clear and present danger" (this standard was changed in Brandenberg). But the whole reason Schenk case even existed in the first place was because of the 1st Amendment questions raised by defamation law. Then, as now, the court determined that defamation is an EXCEPTION to the 1st Amendment, which still means it is a 1st Amendment issue, where the boundaries of what constitutes unprotected defamation is one that needs to be determined under the 1st Amendment. So, again, FIND ME a 1st Amendment lawyer who believes that defamation law has nothing to do with the 1st Amendment. Just one. The Supreme Court prior to Sullivan did not believe that. They knew it was. They knew it in Schenk and the cases after Schenk. It was always a question of where do you draw the exceptions. Just one. What's the lawyer's name, and find me the quote where he or she says that defamation law has nothing to do with the 1st amendment. Should be easy. So I'll wait.

  • On the post: ExTwitter Admits Elon Has Cut 56% Of The Value Of The Company; Fidelity Says It’s Actually Worth Even Less

    Mike Masnick ( profile ), 02 Nov, 2023 @ 09:42pm

    Well no, you’re mischaracterizing what the courts say, as is CRS. 1A being simply inapplicable (as it is in say an NDA) could certainly be confused with being an “exceptION” by someone who doesn’t know the law very well.
    Find a SINGLE lawyer who agrees with you that defamation law is not a 1st Amendment issue. Just one.

  • On the post: ExTwitter Admits Elon Has Cut 56% Of The Value Of The Company; Fidelity Says It’s Actually Worth Even Less

    Mike Masnick ( profile ), 02 Nov, 2023 @ 05:50pm

    maybe back in 2005, but not the last few years, which is why I hate your lying face. Heck, maybe you’re against it in the EU. But here? Here you’re all about it.
    Fuck off. I have never supported it anywhere, and have called it out in the US multiple times in recent months. Just because you're too fucking stupid to understand stuff doesn't mean you need to parade your ignorant ass up and down my site.

  • On the post: ExTwitter Admits Elon Has Cut 56% Of The Value Of The Company; Fidelity Says It’s Actually Worth Even Less

    Mike Masnick ( profile ), 02 Nov, 2023 @ 05:49pm

    Hamas is way more “n@azi” than anything you libtards dream up and it’s ALL on the Left.
    Hamas is... not left wing. JFC you're stupid.

  • On the post: ExTwitter Admits Elon Has Cut 56% Of The Value Of The Company; Fidelity Says It’s Actually Worth Even Less

    Mike Masnick ( profile ), 02 Nov, 2023 @ 05:49pm

    I mean, this is so stupid I don't know where to start. Your argument is that Hamas are Nazis? And that Hamas is leftwing? Both of those are just so laughably stupidly ignorant, that they could only come from your numbskull of a mind.

  • On the post: ExTwitter Admits Elon Has Cut 56% Of The Value Of The Company; Fidelity Says It’s Actually Worth Even Less

    Mike Masnick ( profile ), 02 Nov, 2023 @ 05:47pm

    Dude, you literally lie about the 1A all the time, and know nothing about the law. They’re not “exceptions”, they’re completely removed from it.
    You are so fucking stupid. I am telling you what the courts say.
    Oh, good, propaganda written by gov bureaucrats (i.e. liberals), not a court case or anything.
    CRS is recognized and widely respected as non-partisan, you absolute fucking shithead. The CRS report lists MULTIPLE cases. You ignorant fucking buffoon.

  • On the post: ExTwitter Admits Elon Has Cut 56% Of The Value Of The Company; Fidelity Says It’s Actually Worth Even Less

    Mike Masnick ( profile ), 02 Nov, 2023 @ 05:46pm

    At least one of them must have been Elon Musk, considering he’s the one who confirmed that the user in question had been unbanned.
    And Elon admitted the reason for banning was CSAM. As for the content in question, Denise Paolucci from Dreamwidth, a content moderation expert who has dealt with CSAM for years posted a detailed thread on Bluesky about the content, what it was, its history, and how Lucre had posted it to the site. She detailed that the content, in particular, was so horrific that the FBI had doubted it really existed for a while.

  • On the post: ExTwitter Admits Elon Has Cut 56% Of The Value Of The Company; Fidelity Says It’s Actually Worth Even Less

    Mike Masnick ( profile ), 02 Nov, 2023 @ 04:41pm

    By YOU, not really anyone else, and no direct first hand messages from someone who had seen the image in question.
    Um, yes, by many, many sources, including many who had seen the image in question: https://www.dailydot.com/debug/dom-lucre-elon-musk-child-exploitation-reinstatement/ https://www.vice.com/en/article/xgwa7z/twitter-elon-musk-dom-lucre-child-sexual-abuse https://gizmodo.com/twitter-dom-lucre-ban-elon-musk-child-exploitation-pics-1850681992 https://mashable.com/article/x-twitter-ces-suspension-right-wing-account-reinstated https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2023/07/27/twitter-csam-dom-lucre-elon-musk/ https://boingboing.net/2023/07/27/twitter-reinstates-account-that-posted-child-sex-image.html https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/twitter-faces-criticism-after-reinstating-account-that-posted-child-sex-abuse-image-4249892 https://www.globalvillagespace.com/tech/musks-app-reinstates-user-after-posting-child-exploitation-photos/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/conormurray/2023/07/27/twitter-suspends-then-unsuspends-popular-right-wing-user-who-tweeted-image-of-child-sexual-abuse/ https://www.thestreet.com/personalities/twitter-banned-a-user-for-posting-child-sex-abuse-elon-musk-reinstated-him

Next >>