Mike Masnick 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (23098) comment rss

  • On the post: Media Has No Interest In Paying For Twitter Blue

    Mike Masnick ( profile ), 31 Mar, 2023 @ 03:43pm

    It sounds as if you have been hearing the same illusory version of me who speaks to Stephen T. Stone. I have never even once said that property owners should give up their free speech rights
    So you demand that I only suggest you hold the views which you explicitly claim to have, rather than those implied, yet you refuse to grant me that same courtesy? How interesting.

  • On the post: Media Has No Interest In Paying For Twitter Blue

    Mike Masnick ( profile ), 31 Mar, 2023 @ 01:57pm

    Elon could’ve paid a fraction of what he actually paid for Twitter and avoided all of this bullshit.
    This is false. He signed a deal to pay $44 billion. There was no out for a fraction of what he actually paid. That's people misreading the contract.

  • On the post: Media Has No Interest In Paying For Twitter Blue

    Mike Masnick ( profile ), 31 Mar, 2023 @ 01:57pm

    He tried to NOT pay the $1billion breakup fee. He was taken to court to honor the deal.
    Please stop repeating this myth. He could not have paid a $1 billion breakup fee. That was only if OUTSIDE forces (regulators, or something like that) blocked the deal. It was not a walk away fee. When he signed the deal he was committed to paying $44 billion. Full stop.

  • On the post: Media Has No Interest In Paying For Twitter Blue

    Mike Masnick ( profile ), 31 Mar, 2023 @ 01:55pm

    I’m pretty sure you have said that banning viewpoints you don’t like (which you call harassment and hate speech) is good for free speech because it will encourage more people whose viewpoints you do like to speak, and more such speech is more free speech.
    I said no such thing. I said that allowing websites to set their own rules, allowing them to craft them to attract what kinds of communities they want, and which kinds of speech they don't want, is what enables more free speech, by creating more spaces where people feel comfortable speaking. Again, you are completely steamrolling over what my position actually was.
    I believe I’ve asked you before whether you have a way of saying “transwomen are men” that you don’t consider to be hate speech and harassment, and I don’t think I’ve ever gotten an answer. If you don’t have such a way, then you are relegating dissent of woke gender ideology to silence, because I believe that you do say you want hate speech and harassment silenced.
    There are many ways to say "I disagree with your beliefs" that do not need to include a method that is tied to harassment and hate speech. That you choose to only use those that abuse and harass is on you, dude.
    Twitter suspended the Babylon Bee’s account for satirically giving Dr. Rachel Levine a Man of the Year award. Did you support that ban? Was that under the old management of Twitter? Do you think Musk would have done that? If not, doo you dislike Musk for that?
    I have literally no opinion on that ban beyond that Twitter has the right to do it and I understand why they did it, though I likely would not have done the same were I leading Twitter. I think, like many Babylon Bee articles, that it was mean spirited and not even remotely funny. But, considering that you keep insisting websites should moderate for "decorum" do you not understand why Twitter might have done that for "decorum" purposes, and hoping not to drive away many of its users who found that statement abusive, and contributing to hatred towards themselves and others? I'm quite sure Elon would not have taken down that speech, as is his right, and if he wishes to drive trans users away from his platform by encouraging hate, that's his decision to make. I have no like or dislike for Musk based on that.
    As I have said before, I believe you have wholly committed to woke ideology, gender and otherwise, you would like dissent against it to be silenced, and you try to find ways to spin such silencing as somehow not being in conflict with free speech, which you also claim to support.
    Because you're an idiot. I honestly have very little opinion of "gender ideology" beyond that I believe it's literally no fucking business of my own to care about what is in the underwear of anyone other than those with whom I am in a position to consensually share that information. And I believe in respecting other people, so if they tell me their name, I respectfully call them by that name, rather than disrespecting them and calling them something else. The rest of whatever you refer to as "ideology" I do not know about. I don't see what about my position is tied to any ideology other than respecting people. I do admit that I find it creepy as fuck that you seem obsessed with knowing what is in the underwear of other people. I have no desire to silence anyone. I support everyone's right to speak. Including the right to be disrespectful and to say absolute nonsense. But I also respect the right of private property owners, including myself, to say "not on my property." I find it sad that you repeatedly insist that your obsession with the genitals of children makes you think you should be able to override that right and to ignore the polite requests from property owners for you to leave or learn some fucking respect.
    This has nothing to do with the 1st Amendment either. Free speech is larger than that – it’s an idea and a value, not just a restriction against the government.
    Yes, you say that all the time. But your "idea and value" involves denying private property owners their own free speech rights. Which I find offensive.
    But private parties using their own right of free speech to degrade the free speech of their users is still degrading the ability of their users to speak freely, even when those users don’t have a right to speak freely on platforms they don’t own, and even if they can find another place to speak.
    I love how you started out this silly, silly comment by claiming (falsely) that I support censorship, when you admit here at the end that your belief in free speech means that you believe private property owners should give up their own free rights. Only one of us is committed to actual free speech rights, dude. And it's not you.

  • On the post: Media Has No Interest In Paying For Twitter Blue

    Mike Masnick ( profile ), 31 Mar, 2023 @ 01:12pm

    Do you have some syndrome that makes you forget facts that doesn’t fit your worldview? Like for example, how anyone could pay just $8/month for a verified badge before Musk took over.
    That's not correct. Twitter Blue existed, and was $5 per month, but it was not connected to the verification/blue check program. That's new since Elon took over.

  • On the post: DeSantis May Be Learning What The Copyright World Has Always Known: Disney’s Lawyers Don’t Fuck Around

    Mike Masnick ( profile ), 31 Mar, 2023 @ 01:09pm

    seems like new agreements can be made, adding new heirs as they become available. yeah, this thing can go on forever…
    Not really, since they no longer control the board.

  • On the post: Media Has No Interest In Paying For Twitter Blue

    Mike Masnick ( profile ), 31 Mar, 2023 @ 11:43am

    It's amusing how you continue to lie. You, yourself, insist that companies have the right to moderate, and also insist that they must do so to keep decorum. And you get mad at anyone who says that you support forcing those companies to not moderate, as you carefully distinguish your position as being what the companies should be pressured to do, rather than what they should be forced to do. Yet, when I explain to you, repeatedly, the nuance of my position: which is that I did not support the way in which Twitter moderated in the past, and actually called out the many problems with it in many articles, I still supported their right to moderate as they see fit. Yet, despite me explaining this to you, you continue to lie, and directly misrepresent my position as "liking" the way they moderated. Why is that? Why do you insist on a particular standard for how people should respect the nuance of your position, while deliberately ignoring that nuance in mine? It's almost like you're a dishonest hack.

  • On the post: Book Publishers Won’t Stop Until Libraries Are Dead

    Mike Masnick ( profile ), 29 Mar, 2023 @ 10:49pm

    The difference between his fever dream and reality is that this case was about the Internet Archive scanning one book under copyright, making an unlimited number of copies of that book and lending them all out to an infinite number of people all at the same time.
    No. While that was one part of the case, the ruling was on the CDL setup, not just the NEL (which was more of legal gray area). Under CDL they did not "lend them all out to an infinite number of people all at the same time." Since you don't seem to know the details of the case, please educate yourself before making a further fool of yourself.

  • On the post: Elon Musk Effectively Admits That He Set Fire To More Than Half Of Twitter’s Value

    Mike Masnick ( profile ), 29 Mar, 2023 @ 02:52pm

    You’re right, copy and paste error. Here’s the link I thought I was sharing:
    That link shows the same data my link showed, confirming the accuracy of it.
    Yeah, I don’t really care how you want to cherry pick and parse it, your goal here is to misrepresent. They have had truly wild swings in income but they have, on balance, lost money.
    I didn't cherry pick. I chose 2018 because that's when the company first hit profitability. So it seemed like a reasonable starting point to look at how profitable it had been since then, and the answer is... that it has been slightly above breakeven, and not massively losing money nor at risk of going bankrupt.
    The last 10 years as a publicly traded company seems a pretty reasonable timeframe.
    No, it really doesn't if the question is how much trouble was the company in today, and to respond to your claim that it was going out of business. The data simply does not support that. The question to understand, from a quarterly to quarterly basis, how is the company doing, and the data showed that the company was mostly doing pretty well, with a few down quarters, including one massive, non-cash charge. Which I've now explained in every single comment on this, which you continue to ignore.
    No, it wasn’t. They didn’t reach anything. Looking at the graph, they peaked. They were losing money for a long time, made money in 2018-19, then started losing money again. That’s it.
    That's simply not true if you look at cashflow. And you're hiding numbers in aggregate by looking at the yearly statements, not quarterly. Again, if you look at quarterly, and look at cash flow, the company was not in trouble. I wouldn't say it was doing fantastically well, but it wasn't burning cash or anything.
    Yeah, see, that would be a good example, cuz none of that matters, actually. All you’re saying is that the profits are spread out and the loses concentrated, and that doesn’t fucking matter, at all.
    Yeah, but the main "concentrated" loss was a ONE TIME NON-CASH charge. That's what I keep telling you and which you keep ignoring. By the way, the other big "loss" was due to the FTC fine. More of which may be on the way.
    They lost fucking money Masnick. They were losing money, at the time of sale, Masnick. Learn to read financial statements.
    You're so transparently ignorant Matthew. I know how to read financial statements. I'm trying to explain them to you, but you continue to wallow in your ignorance.

  • On the post: Winnie The Pooh Escapes Copyright Hell, Grabs Some Weapons, And Immediately Gets Kicked Out Of Hong Kong

    Mike Masnick ( profile ), 29 Mar, 2023 @ 12:59pm

    And the 1st Amendment meaning that DeSantis keeps losing in court?

  • On the post: As The Social Media Moral Panic Continues, People Keep Highlighting How Much Value It Actually Provides

    Mike Masnick ( profile ), 29 Mar, 2023 @ 11:31am

    Dinky stuff: Unless things have changed “Danah Boyd” is actually “danah boyd” cuz that’s how she rolls.
    Will go through the rest of this later, but just to respond on this point: I was told last fall that she no longer does that and is now fine with capitals. I capitalized here based on what I was told by someone who has worked with her. It could be false information though.

  • On the post: Elon Musk Effectively Admits That He Set Fire To More Than Half Of Twitter’s Value

    Mike Masnick ( profile ), 28 Mar, 2023 @ 10:41pm

    Hey Matthew. Your link is the same as mine. Anyhoo, I highlighted from 2018 forward because the question was whether or not the company has been breakeven or if it's losing cash. It was unprofitable for many years, but from 2018 forward it was mostly profitable quarter to quarter. As I noted (and you oddly pretend I did not) there was a very large "loss" in 2020, but it was a paper loss due to an accounting of a noncash tax deferment. Which I stated, and you conveniently clipped out. That's why the stock actually went up after the announcement of that large loss, because the underlying fundamentals were still good, especially regarding cashflow. So, no, I stand by what I said, because it was correct. You have to go all the way back to 2012 to make your argument, and ignore the fact that the major "loss" you show in 2020 was the result of an accounting issue, which didn't hit actual cash flow. Again, what I said was absolutely accurate and true. Since the company reached profitability in 2018, it was mostly profitable in nearly every quarter, with a few underwater quarters, including the big one I mentioned, and which you pretended I didn't mention. I'm sorry you seem unable to read financial statements, but it just reminds everyone how totally full of shit you are.

  • On the post: Elon Musk Effectively Admits That He Set Fire To More Than Half Of Twitter’s Value

    Mike Masnick ( profile ), 28 Mar, 2023 @ 09:54am

    No, it wasn’t. Masnick claimed that, but spoiler, Masnick lies sometimes. Pretty frequently, actually.
    The fun thing about just how often Matthew makes factual statements where he claims I lie, is just how easy it is to show the factual data that proves Matthew is lying. https://csimarket.com/stocks/single_growth_rates.php?code=TWTR&net Since 2018 Twitter has had 15 profitable quarters, compared to 4 unprofitable quarters. The company did take a big hit in Q2 of 2020 which was because of an accounting move to deal with a noncash deferred tax asset (interestingly, Wall St. reacted positively to that quarter's announcement, because all of the underlying data was good). So, yeah, the numbers don't lie. I don't lie. Matthew does. The company was running effectively break even, with most quarters profitable in the last four years, and a few quarters would dip under.

  • On the post: Elon Musk Effectively Admits That He Set Fire To More Than Half Of Twitter’s Value

    Mike Masnick ( profile ), 27 Mar, 2023 @ 06:04pm

    I mean, market value is literally what someone is willing to pay for something, so you go by the last actual data point. And in this case, that's $44 billion.

  • On the post: Utah’s Governor Live Streams Signing Of Unconstitutional Social Media Bill On All The Social Media Platforms He Hates

    Mike Masnick ( profile ), 24 Mar, 2023 @ 03:38pm

    Mike, this seems like a weak attempt to manufacture controversy. Bad as the bill is, I doubt this person claimed social media only caused problems.
    They certainly imply as much.
    We could just as well write something like “governor proposes to regulate the very banks in which their government deposits tax rebates”.
    No, because that involves something that is necessary to use. Governor Cox does not regularly live stream his signing ceremonies. The fact that he is doing so here, across multiple social media platforms seems worth highlighting.

  • On the post: Utah’s Governor Live Streams Signing Of Unconstitutional Social Media Bill On All The Social Media Platforms He Hates

    Mike Masnick ( profile ), 24 Mar, 2023 @ 02:12pm

    No, I really don’t think you were. And I was not talking about just one article, either.
    Everyone can read the two articles and see for themselves. As for other articles, I can't see how they're any less harsh. I mean, there's this one, which is pretty pointed: https://www.techdirt.com/2022/08/24/dear-california-law-makers-how-the-hell-can-i-comply-with-your-new-age-appropriate-design-code/ And I'm participating in the lawsuit to stop the law. https://www.techdirt.com/2023/02/22/i-explained-to-a-court-how-californias-kids-code-is-both-impossible-to-comply-with-an-attack-on-our-expression/ But, go on, tell me how I'm not critical of Newsom when I called literally said he's "fucking over the open internet." People can read, Matthew. They can tell you're full of shit.

  • On the post: Utah’s Governor Live Streams Signing Of Unconstitutional Social Media Bill On All The Social Media Platforms He Hates

    Mike Masnick ( profile ), 24 Mar, 2023 @ 01:08pm

    But I really want you to look at your coverage of this vs similar moves by Newsom in CA
    Go for it. Knock yourself out: https://www.techdirt.com/2022/09/15/gavin-newsom-fucks-over-the-open-internet-signs-disastrously-stupid-age-appropriate-design-code/ I'd argue that I was even more pejorative there.

  • On the post: Utah’s Governor Live Streams Signing Of Unconstitutional Social Media Bill On All The Social Media Platforms He Hates

    Mike Masnick ( profile ), 24 Mar, 2023 @ 12:50pm

    Of course, the courts will dismiss the challenges to the legislation on the grounds of standing, because the legislation hasn’t yet gone into effect so nobody has been harmed.
    Not so sure. In fighting other state regulations, the argument has been that websites have to put in place many resources to get set up to abide by it, so the costs begin immediately. I guess we'll see.

  • On the post: Judge Says White House Can’t Get Out Of Lawsuit Over Pressuring Social Media To Moderate

    Mike Masnick ( profile ), 24 Mar, 2023 @ 11:30am

    The disinformation governance board is bad! Masnick denies
    Dude. You do know people can read that I criticized the board? Or do you assume everyone is as ignorant as you are? https://www.techdirt.com/2022/04/29/white-house-sets-up-monumentally-stupidly-named-disinformation-governance-board/

  • On the post: Jim Jordan Weaponizes The Subcommittee On The Weaponization Of The Gov’t To Intimidate Researchers & Chill Speech

    Mike Masnick ( profile ), 24 Mar, 2023 @ 10:48am

    I remember back when techdirt was a proponent of FOIA stuff. Ahh man, those were the days!
    We still are proponents of FOIA. FOIA allows transparency into what the government is doing, which is necessary for an open government. It is not about the government snooping on private organizations. This is not FOIA. Meanwhile, if we are talking about FOIA, I'll note that Congress is exempt from FOIA. Why do you think that is?

Next >>