Mike Masnick 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (23350) comment rss

  • On the post: Everyone In This LEGO Dispute Should Have Spoken To A Lawyer Earlier Than They Did

    Mike Masnick ( profile ), 03 Jun, 2026 @ 10:35am

    I addressed all those points in the article and in the comments.

  • On the post: Everyone In This LEGO Dispute Should Have Spoken To A Lawyer Earlier Than They Did

    Mike Masnick ( profile ), 03 Jun, 2026 @ 10:34am

    I watched the videos. The only lawyers they spoke to were regarding whether or not they could sue. But that's not the only thing lawyers could do. Other things lawyers would be useful for:

    1. Writing a contract
    2. Filing a UCC-1 notice
    3. Terminating a contract
    4. Figuring out if you should say you're going to do something illegal
    5. Thinking that creating a lottery suddenly makes this a criminal case
    6. Understanding conversion
    7. Understanding consignment
    The list goes on. The only discussion of lawyers was about suing to get the stuff back. My argument is about other things, not that. I thought I was pretty clear on that in the article.

  • On the post: Everyone In This LEGO Dispute Should Have Spoken To A Lawyer Earlier Than They Did

    Mike Masnick ( profile ), 03 Jun, 2026 @ 10:29am

    Hi, I’m the first youtuber Bryan contacted. We felt, after speaking to corporate that we would be opening ourselves up to legal liabilites. They said “It must be stated unequivocally: any further public misrepresentation of this situation — particularly those made without full context, factual verification, or legal basis — will be considered defamatory.”
    Another point where some legal help would be valuable, in doing some prepublication review. Giving your opinion on a situation (if that's what you did) is not defamatory. Opinions cannot be defamatory. Only false statements of fact. And there are lawyers who will (for not very much money) do prepublication review to call out things that might cross the line.
    As corporate seemed to indicate FURTHER comment, we never did take our videos down, so this line in the article is incorrect
    I was basing it on what Schneider had claimed but if that's not the case, that's good to know.

  • On the post: Everyone In This LEGO Dispute Should Have Spoken To A Lawyer Earlier Than They Did

    Mike Masnick ( profile ), 03 Jun, 2026 @ 10:26am

    If you think this article is "horribly biased on the BnM side" you may have reading comprehension issues that you should work on.

  • On the post: Everyone In This LEGO Dispute Should Have Spoken To A Lawyer Earlier Than They Did

    Mike Masnick ( profile ), 03 Jun, 2026 @ 10:25am

    Too freaking many.

  • On the post: Everyone In This LEGO Dispute Should Have Spoken To A Lawyer Earlier Than They Did

    Mike Masnick ( profile ), 03 Jun, 2026 @ 10:24am

    He was stopped by the cops three times while trying to serve papers that he was legally required to do in person.
    This is false. You do not need to serve them "in person." This is why the job of "process server" exists. But, yes, the cops clearly were pre-disposed to be against a bunch of young YouTubers which led to them making a bunch of highly questionable decisions. But that doesn't mean that Schneider's narrative is entirely accurate either.

  • On the post: Everyone In This LEGO Dispute Should Have Spoken To A Lawyer Earlier Than They Did

    Mike Masnick ( profile ), 03 Jun, 2026 @ 12:25am

    Just to be clear, Claude had literally nothing to do with writing this post. I get that some people think it's fun and cool to accuse others of writing with an LLM, but I wrote this damn thing from scratch and it took basically the whole freaking weekend and most of Monday and some of Tuesday morning. Genuinely.

  • On the post: Everyone In This LEGO Dispute Should Have Spoken To A Lawyer Earlier Than They Did

    Mike Masnick ( profile ), 03 Jun, 2026 @ 12:23am

    Except Schneider has documented in his video that everything he did was in right legally speaking MULTIPLE TIMES.
    Uh, no. He makes a bunch of claims that what he's doing is fully legal. And some of the things he did were. But many were... things that no competent lawyer would suggest he do.
    Josh and the police kept making shit up to try and get him thrown in jail and now he has a warrant out for his arrest for some mystery crime.
    I agree that Josh and the police look bad, though it goes further than the evidence says to claim "they keep making shit up." Also, there is no current warrant out for his arrest. Again, Schneider claimed this, but it's not true. That could change (perhaps it likely will). But there is no current warrant.

  • On the post: Everyone In This LEGO Dispute Should Have Spoken To A Lawyer Earlier Than They Did

    Mike Masnick ( profile ), 02 Jun, 2026 @ 05:03pm

    So there is more to "consulting lawyers" than "can I sue over this?" But most of the lawyer consulting I'm talking about refers to BAM, Schneider, and (to a lesser extent) Law & Gorman. But even Mansell would have done well to better paper his original consignment agreement and later termination.

  • On the post: Judge Reopens Trump’s IRS Case, Wants To Know If The Court Was Defrauded

    Mike Masnick ( profile ), 02 Jun, 2026 @ 03:43pm

    Once again, the troll is trolling, but for everyone else with working braincells: the troll claims that Obama did the exact same thing, even as I already proved that was false. Furthermore, the troll claims that my response is as a "hyper partisan activist" which is laughable for multiple reasons with the leading one being that the evidence I presented earlier WAS FROM A HYPER PARTISAN GOP activist, Ed Whelan, who pointed out why what Trump did here was nothing like what Obama did. If you don't know, Whelan was one of the main people who helped get Brett Kavanaugh approved for the Supreme Court. He's not a Democrat, a leftist, or anti-Trump. He's very supportive. This is why trolls are so exhaustingly stupid. They will post blatantly, easily proven-false lies over and over again because their goal is not to convince, or even to make a real argument. Their goal is to distract and get people upset. Don't fall for it. You can just point out the false statements and move on knowing full well that this individual has deep insecurities and inadequacies that present themselves through his boorish, trollish behavior.

  • On the post: How AI Can Lead To False Arrests & Wrongful Convictions

    Mike Masnick ( profile ), 01 Jun, 2026 @ 09:09pm

    I think it depends on what the tools promise. If they promise something and are unable to offer that, then there's liability in the form of false marketing. But if it's just some law enforcement or judges stupidly relying on the tech in dangerous ways, then the liability should be on law enforcement and the judges for misusing tech in ways it shouldn't be used. Seems pretty straightforward. My only issue is when we hold companies liable for things they didn't say the tech could do, and where some human relies on it in ways they clearly should not.

  • On the post: Judge Reopens Trump’s IRS Case, Wants To Know If The Court Was Defrauded

    Mike Masnick ( profile ), 01 Jun, 2026 @ 12:38pm

    I responded to this false statement that this same trolling commenter made last week and, of course, he ran away and didn't respond. I'll just copy and past it again here though: I know this person is trolling, but just for anyone who wants to be educated, not stupid, let’s work through why this troll comment is nonsense. “activist judges” This is the new line that MAGA trolls like to throw out every time a ruling goes against them. The problem is that the vast, vast, vast majority or rulings go against them, and there is little to no evidence of “activist judges” in those cases (hell, many of the rulings are Trump appointed judges). Without any additional evidence (such as a long pattern of partisan rulings, or ignoring or dismissing on point precedent) this claim is bullshit. Are there activist judges? Yes, a few, though not that many. And in every case I can point to actual evidence of why a judge is considered as such, not “oh they ruled against me this one time.” “Overturned in a week or so.” This isn’t even a ruling yet to overturn. It’s just a temporary injunction to allow for more briefing in one week. Indeed, the fact that the judge DENIED the request for a TRO again points to the lack of it being an activist judge, but rather one who just said “hey let’s wait two weeks to get more info.” “You’ll completely fail to comment on it.” Doubtful. There are many stories happening every day and if I am super busy or traveling maybe I won’t comment on every turn in the case, but this is an important case so I’ll likely comment on it. It’s also provably false on the implication that I don’t write about cases where I disagree with the outcome. I do that all the freaking time as anyone who can read (and isn’t a troll) can tell. “This is almost exactly the same as what Obama did” It’s not. If this troll could read, we actually already addressed this in our earlier post, citing not some “leftist activist” but rather Ed Whelan, one of the most right wing conservative legal commentators out there, who pointed out all of the many (important) ways in which this was entirely different from what Obama did. As Whelan noted, the Keepseagle settlement was approved by a court, which makes all the difference in the world. This one was not. Second, the Keepseagle settlement had very strict restrictions on who could make a claim on the fund, and what evidence you needed to present to be eligible for a claim. This fund does not have that. So no, any actual lawyer will tell you this is extraordinarily different than the Keepseagle fund (which is what the troll is falsely suggesting is similar to this). This is today’s lesson in “how to debunk bullshit MAGA talking points.” I am sure the troll will return with insults and goalpost moving (it’s all they can do) but it won’t make them any less full of shit.

  • On the post: How AI Can Lead To False Arrests & Wrongful Convictions

    Mike Masnick ( profile ), 31 May, 2026 @ 11:45am

    Your "basically" is load bearing here. And it's wrong. At no point have I ever said that "no one should be held responsible." But also your "AI killing suicidal people" is fucked up because the AI didn't "kill" anyone, and the fact that you think it did is incredibly disturbing and makes me question your understanding of how literally anything works.

  • On the post: How AI Can Lead To False Arrests & Wrongful Convictions

    Mike Masnick ( profile ), 30 May, 2026 @ 02:07pm

    You would do well to stop believing the strawman Mike Masnick who lives in your brain is the actual Mike Masnick. It would (1) make you sound less like a raving lunatic and (2) would allow you to hold actual adult discussions.

  • On the post: How AI Can Lead To False Arrests & Wrongful Convictions

    Mike Masnick ( profile ), 30 May, 2026 @ 11:53am

    You... do realize I'm the one who chose to publish this story, right? Right?

  • On the post: Court Temporarily Freezes Trump’s $1.776 Billion ‘Anti-Weaponization’ Slush Fund To Figure Out WTF Is Going On

    Mike Masnick ( profile ), 29 May, 2026 @ 04:13pm

    I know this person is trolling, but just for anyone who wants to be educated, not stupid, let's work through why this troll comment is nonsense.

  • "activist judges"
    • This is the new line that MAGA trolls like to throw out every time a ruling goes against them. The problem is that the vast, vast, vast majority or rulings go against them, and there is little to no evidence of "activist judges" in those cases (hell, many of the rulings are Trump appointed judges). Without any additional evidence (such as a long pattern of partisan rulings, or ignoring or dismissing on point precedent) this claim is bullshit. Are there activist judges? Yes, a few, though not that many. And in every case I can point to actual evidence of why a judge is considered as such, not "oh they ruled against me this one time."
  • "Overturned in a week or so."
    • This isn't even a ruling yet to overturn. It's just a temporary injunction to allow for more briefing in one week. Indeed, the fact that the judge DENIED the request for a TRO again points to the lack of it being an activist judge, but rather one who just said "hey let's wait two weeks to get more info."
  • "You'll completely fail to comment on it."
    • Doubtful. There are many stories happening every day and if I am super busy or traveling maybe I won't comment on every turn in the case, but this is an important case so I'll likely comment on it. It's also provably false on the implication that I don't write about cases where I disagree with the outcome. I do that all the freaking time as anyone who can read (and isn't a troll) can tell.
  • "This is almost exactly the same as what Obama did"
    • It's not. If this troll could read, we actually already addressed this in our earlier post, citing not some "leftist activist" but rather Ed Whelan, one of the most right wing conservative legal commentators out there, who pointed out all of the many (important) ways in which this was entirely different from what Obama did. As Whelan noted, the Keepseagle settlement was approved by a court, which makes all the difference in the world. This one was not. Second, the Keepseagle settlement had very strict restrictions on who could make a claim on the fund, and what evidence you needed to present to be eligible for a claim. This fund does not have that. So no, any actual lawyer will tell you this is extraordinarily different than the Keepseagle fund (which is what the troll is falsely suggesting is similar to this). This is today's lesson in "how to debunk bullshit MAGA talking points." I am sure the troll will return with insults and goalpost moving (it's all they can do) but it won't make them any less full of shit.

  • On the post: My Kid Vibe Coded Their Way To Actually Learning Math

    Mike Masnick ( profile ), 29 May, 2026 @ 02:27pm

    Nah, it's not. Don't be silly. What I'm saying is that I always write about what's interesting to me. I have for 30 years. And for me, it's interesting to find that line of where the tech is useful. Repeating a hundred other doom and gloom stories aren't interesting to me at all. And having people like you constantly scream at me doesn't make me any more interested in exploring the downsides, because you have made it clear that you will not listen to anything that doesn't confirm your priors. What's interesting to me is understanding the deeper ins and outs and nuances. And yet any time I write about that here I get a small group of screamers (including yourself) telling me that I have violated some unwritten rule about not outright condemning all uses. So what good is it for me to write a piece exploring the downsides (which I've done many times) when it seems like your only interest in such an article is to make you feel better about a conclusion you've already reached? Exploring that issue feels like a waste of time. You're already 100% certain the tech has no redeeming qualities and is all bad. If I write a piece lying to you to make you feel good... that helps no one. If I write a piece exploring the nuances, then at least some people are willing to discuss it in good faith. So I'm really not interested in just repeating the things that Ed Zitron rights. You can read him if you want to have someone tell you what you want to hear.

  • On the post: My Kid Vibe Coded Their Way To Actually Learning Math

    Mike Masnick ( profile ), 28 May, 2026 @ 08:09am

    Yes. It is a lot of work. And that's kind of my point. Those selling AI as some sort of magic potion that doesn't involve actual work are lying to you. But for those willing to put in some initial work, the benefits are there. Yes, it was a lot of work to initially setup, but once it was working, it continues working. Now it's just pushing a button and getting back very useful results every time. This is the point I keep trying to make. It can be helpful, but not in the way that it's being marketed for the most part.

  • On the post: My Kid Vibe Coded Their Way To Actually Learning Math

    Mike Masnick ( profile ), 27 May, 2026 @ 03:15pm

    Yes, GenAI has its uses and when applied in those limited situations it can be a force multiplier. Just as Mike found it helpful for reviewing his work and others have found similar examples, I too use AI to rapidly review documents and organize data. Despite these limited successes, AI is overhyped, oversold, overpromised, and incapable of fully replacing people.
    And I have consistently said that it's overhyped and oversold by the big AI companies. Not once have I suggested otherwise. I also think that they're all full of shit in claiming that it will replace jobs. I wrote a whole thing on how that was bullshit. If anything it just helps people at the edges of their jobs, and isn't good at all for replacing people. So I agree with you and have written as much. So I honestly don't get this line of complaints. It seems that every single time I say something, where I put directly into context some way in which the tech is helpful a bunch of people start screaming about me about what an asshole I am because I haven't 100% condemned the tech. But I have called out the overhype and bullshit marketing projections. And that's just not good enough for some people? Honestly, the annoying thing here is it makes me want to write about the downsides of AI much, much less because that's so tired. I tried to find a narrow area that I could write about that was neither unbounded hype, nor overhyped doom and gloom. I found a realistic line, and I get yelled at for it as well. So, honestly, that makes me feel like I should fuck off even trying to talk about the negatives since people are going to ignore that anyway. I have to be honest, it really feels like a bunch of people here are desperate to have me lie to feel soothed. It's fucking weird.

  • On the post: My Kid Vibe Coded Their Way To Actually Learning Math

    Mike Masnick ( profile ), 27 May, 2026 @ 01:20pm

    I mean, this is silly for multiple very stupid reasons.

    1. I have put the Pope's thing on my (very long list, over 40 potential stories this week, of which I'll be lucky to cover 5 or 6). I don't know if I'll get to it, but we always tend to cover things a few days later anyway, so I might still get to it. We'll see.

    2. Honestly, I'm not sure what the freaking Pope has to say on tech issues is particularly interesting or relevant to me. He's not exactly known as being relevant on tech policy.

    3. What my kid did was not a powerpoint presentation and I seriously question your comprehension ability if you think that's what happened here.

    4. There are approximately 50k articles about what the Pope said if you want to find one. There is (and can be) only one about what my kid did here. So, yeah, I actually do think that's a better thing for me to write about, because no one else is going to cover it and it does present a different (and to me more interesting) view into how the tech is being used.

    In the meantime, when you own the site, you are then free to give me editorial direction. Until then, you're an anonymous troll, with poor reading comprehension ability.

    • Next >>