Mike Masnick 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (23099)

• On the post: Court Makes It Clear: Government Submissions To Twitter Flagging Program Do Not Violate The 1st Amendment

  

  Mike Masnick ( profile ), 16 Mar, 2023 @ 02:32pm

  Eventually, Masnick, eventually.

  Yes. Because the 1st Amendment. Which still applies to Twitter as well as the baker. They have the right to refuse to endorse speech. That's how the 1st Amendment works.

  So yeah, sued into the ground.

  No doubt. This is why having strong precedents on the 1st Amendment, as well as procedural tools like Section 230 and anti-SLAPP laws are so important. But, you're not just moving the goalposts, you're turning the entire field around. You claimed that the 1st Amendment did not protect a private property owner from denying speech. That's provably false. The fact that the case confirming that you are wrong took a long time is a shame, but it doesn't change the underlying fact. Or that your claim was wrong.

• On the post: Yes, The US Government Threatening To Block TikTok Violates The 1st Amendment

  

  Mike Masnick ( profile ), 16 Mar, 2023 @ 02:26pm

  **Government agencies spend hundreds of millions of dollars pressuring SM to ban people and entire topics of conversation, Masnick says “noting to see here”. **

  As I keep telling you, Matthew, if there were actually evidence of what you claim was happening, then, yes, I would be arguing that it's a 1st Amendment violation. The problem is that the evidence doesn't show that. Meanwhile, you once again ignore that this is us, AGAIN, criticizing Democrat policy positions that violate the 1st Amendment, which you insisted (falsely) that we'd never do because you were positive (incorrectly) that we're partisan. I will criticize anyone who actually violates the 1st Amendment no matter what party and for what purpose. But there needs to be actual evidence of it happening. As for the "national security powers," claim that you seem to be making... um... that's not how it works. There are cases where heightened scrutiny can be met through an argument of national security, but you have to actually demonstrate the actual threat, which the administration has not done. I'm sorry, Matthew, that we believe in the 1st Amendment as it actually works, and not in the partisan, nationalistic fake version that lives in your head.

• On the post: Copyright Means You May Need Permission To Post Photos Of Your Own Home Online

  

  Mike Masnick ( profile ), 16 Mar, 2023 @ 02:21pm

  There is no obvious transformation from the licensed product by the house owner in these images:

  Transformative use does not mean a change in the image. It's a difference in purpose for the images. That's why Google scanning books was allowed. It wasn't changing the books, but it was using the content for a different purpose (scanning and searching, rather than reading). Here the purpose of the picture was not to sell the picture but rather to decorate a home, which is textbook transformative use.

• On the post: Yes, The US Government Threatening To Block TikTok Violates The 1st Amendment

  

  Mike Masnick ( profile ), 16 Mar, 2023 @ 02:18pm

  So you... just didn't read the article?

• On the post: Yes, The US Government Threatening To Block TikTok Violates The 1st Amendment

  

  Mike Masnick ( profile ), 16 Mar, 2023 @ 02:17pm

  the TidePod challenge,

  Mostly a myth made up by the media that then drove more attention to it. Not really a major TiKTok thing.

  the boiling water challenge, the choking game challenge,

  Both of which predate TikTok's existence by years.

  teaching kids “the shuffle” dance

  Have to admit I'm unfamiliar...

• On the post: Yes, The US Government Threatening To Block TikTok Violates The 1st Amendment

  

  Mike Masnick ( profile ), 16 Mar, 2023 @ 02:12pm

  Corporate sovereignty (aka ISDS) requires a treaty between the two countries that has that included (and then the details of the ISDS). I'm not sure if the US and China have that in any agreements. There were plans to include it in the US China BIT, but that fell through years ago and I don't think it's been rekindled...

• On the post: Court Makes It Clear: Government Submissions To Twitter Flagging Program Do Not Violate The 1st Amendment

  

  Mike Masnick ( profile ), 16 Mar, 2023 @ 09:57am

  You most definitely did not.

  We regularly criticized the policies (including the "hacked materials" policy which we called out for how it would be used to suppress journalism BEFORE the whole NY Post thing happened). We also regularly called out their bad enforcement, like the time they banned someone for quoting the Princess Bride. I'm sorry that you live in an alternate reality.

  Uh huh….and Big Tech will kill them off in a weekend, explicitly for not having the same bad policies. So bullshit.

  Not true. Parler, Gab, Gettr, Truth Social and more all still exist. Don't lie.

  Twitter was meeting with a half dozen federal agencies weekly

  Yes. But all of the reports on that show that none of that was about removing content. If it was shown to be about removing content, I'd agree with you.

  40+ “ex”-FBI agents worked at twitter and communicated constantly with their former colleagues

  Yes. People leave law enforcement and go work elsewhere. You think once people leave the FBI they're never allowed to work anywhere else?

  Federal government was spending several hundred million dollars funding groups to lobby Twitter (and FB and others) on who to censor.

  That's not at all what the records show. They show that the government funded organizations to research foreign influence and misinformation policies. Which... seems like a reasonable thing to do? There is no evidence beyond that. If there were, you might have a point. But there isn't. So you're fantasizing about it.

  We have numerous examples of various government agencies requesting people be suspended and those people indeed being suspended even with no TOS violations in evidence.

  I haven't seen such evidence. Can you point it out to me?

  Perhaps much more nefariously we have the shadow-banning. (numerous execs perjured themselves, btw) Very directly we have entire topics (including true medical info) being “viewpoint throttled” per government request. (that much is in stark black and white) and then we have things like Jay Bhattacharya being disappeared, apparently also per government request. (there’s less of a smoking gun there)

  This is false and we already discussed it. A bunch of fucking morons changed the definition of shadowbanning AFTERWARDS to pretend that Twitter execs perjured themselves, but it was only because they changed the definition. Twitter was always public about its visibility filtering. The fact that the same fucking morons ignored it at the time is on them, not Twitter. And I have seen no evidence that the government requested specific topics throttled, or that they did so in a coercive manner. So if you have a citation, fucking show it.

  It just so happens that Twitter’s official definition of “misinformation” on covid matters aligned perfectly with the CDC/NIH stated on opinion.

  This was also a policy we complained about, noting that official information was often wrong. But, it's understandable that a company might choose to follow official guidelines about health information from health agencies in the midst of a rapidly unfolding totally new pandemic. So while I disagreed with the policy and called out problems with it (especially trusting the WHO), it's also perfectly understandable and again shows no sign of coercion. Matt: try fucking harder. This stupid shit is getting tiresome and you're just proving yourself to be a silly fucking moron.

• On the post: Court Makes It Clear: Government Submissions To Twitter Flagging Program Do Not Violate The 1st Amendment

  

  Mike Masnick ( profile ), 16 Mar, 2023 @ 09:46am

  No. They didn't. The cakeshop won on 1st Amendment grounds. https://www.oyez.org/cases/2017/16-111 So the original statement was correct. No one has the right to force their speech onto private property.

• On the post: Court Makes It Clear: Government Submissions To Twitter Flagging Program Do Not Violate The 1st Amendment

  

  Mike Masnick ( profile ), 16 Mar, 2023 @ 09:44am

  If government is directing Twitters censorship, that WOULD be illegal — on the part of government, not Twitter.

  Correct. And we're still waiting for any evidence to be provided that the government directed any such Twitter censorship. As the ruling in this case (which follows along with a long list of other cases in other circuits across the country) shows.

• On the post: Court Makes It Clear: Government Submissions To Twitter Flagging Program Do Not Violate The 1st Amendment

  

  Mike Masnick ( profile ), 15 Mar, 2023 @ 09:08pm

  Hey Ben.

  How many times did we hear congress threaten tech executives with fines / regulations, if they don’t censor more speech, in front of the us congress

  Can you point to specific examples of that? I have called out Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar for statements to that effect, but I never saw either of them say anything like that in any hearing. So I'd like to see an example of that, because that would be wrong.

  Meanwhile they have tried to regulate tiktok out of business entirely.

  Yup, which I think is a clear 1st Amendment violation. But, that's the point: if there's actual coercion, it's violates the 1st Amendment. Absent that -- and a simple "reporting" feature is not that -- there's no coercion and no 1st amendment violation.

• On the post: Court Makes It Clear: Government Submissions To Twitter Flagging Program Do Not Violate The 1st Amendment

  

  Mike Masnick ( profile ), 15 Mar, 2023 @ 08:56pm

  They’re not deciding what OTHER people can say, dumbass. Twitter is.

  How so? Media organizations absolutely choose what (and who!) can say stuff in their magazines, newspapers, and TV shows. They choose who gets a voice, and even what they can say. They also get to choose how they frame the truth. The internet is unique in that it opened up the ability for more people to speak, but that's unrelated to the point that you made originally, which was to (somewhat ridiculously) claim that no organization was deemed the arbiter of truth. Of course they were. Any media organization decides what it thinks is truth and presents it. Consumers of that media's output were free to disagree and to go elsewhere. Same with Twitter. It's no different. Twitter has every right to determine what it thinks is truth, and to allow that speech and disallow others. And if people don't like it, they can go elsewhere. I mean, Elon's Twitter does that too. As it should. So does Truth Social. And Gettr and Parler.

• On the post: Court Makes It Clear: Government Submissions To Twitter Flagging Program Do Not Violate The 1st Amendment

  

  Mike Masnick ( profile ), 15 Mar, 2023 @ 08:52pm

  The thing is, I actually agree with Matthew's underlying point here, though (as per usual) he then misses the point. We've long argued that the government should not outlaw hate speech, and have highlighted repeatedly how hate speech laws are regularly abused to silence speech, often of the marginalized and powerless by the powerful. But... that's not the issue here. Twitter is not the government. Twitter is a private company, and as such, those of us who believe in private property rights, believe that it has the right to craft its own rules for what content it allows on its own site, and what it doesn't allow — even if we disagree with the policies or the enforcement. Because Twitter is not the government. And, if Twitter comes up with bad policies or enforces them badly, then people can set up competitors and compete. As has happened. And then we let competition and the market sort it out. The only issue is when the government demands that such speech be blocked, because then it is seeking to block such speech across the board. And, contrary to Matt's belief, to date, there has been little evidence of the US government doing that. There have been a few points that have toed the line, which we've called out (the White House has been particularly silly on this front). But the claims about the FBI or whatnot are simply not supported by the evidence. It's entirely possible that evidence to the contrary will show up tomorrow. But until there's actual evidence of government intrusion to the point of coercion... Matt's simply engaged in wishful thinking of what he (and many others) were sure was happening. The cognitive dissonance comes from the fact that the evidence fails to show his steadfast belief was true, and rather than adjust his prior like a rational, logical person, Matt is engaging in fantastical wishcasting, that lets him tell himself something that is clearly not shown in the evidence, so that he can continue to believe false information. It's kinda pathetic, but, you know, kinda used to it from silly people like Matt.

• On the post: Court Makes It Clear: Government Submissions To Twitter Flagging Program Do Not Violate The 1st Amendment

  

  Mike Masnick ( profile ), 15 Mar, 2023 @ 08:45pm

  What if Twitter decided it would suffer no gay content? That all marriage was between a man and a woman and saying anything else was a violation of TOS?

  They are able to do that, and there are sites (many religious sites) that have just such a policy. So tell us, Matt, do you think those sites are somehow censoring people? This is the whole point of 230, by the way. That every site can moderate in the way they want to moderate, to create the kind of community that they, as private property owners, wish to create. So it's entirely legal for a site catering to evangelicals or Catholics or some other group to reject any pro-homosexual content, and they have every right to do so. If you're going to argue that Twitter is different because it's a "general purpose" site, well, so what? Companies that cater to the wider public are free to make their own biases clear (think: Hobby Lobby, Chik-Fil-A and lots of others) and users are free to decide whether or not to do business with those companies. It's only in this weird corner of the internet, that a bunch of people who used to pretend to believe in private property rights, along with the 1st Amendment's association rights, who have suddenly flipped it around and started pretending that Twitter must be forced to allow everyone to speak.

• On the post: Copyright Means You May Need Permission To Post Photos Of Your Own Home Online

  

  Mike Masnick ( profile ), 15 Mar, 2023 @ 08:32pm

  Fair use wouldn’t apply because commercial purpose + no commentary + not transformative.

  I think you could make a very, very strong argument for transformative and win. I also disagree that it's commercial purpose (which doesn't exclude fair use anyway). See: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/448/605/637042/ I think in the 2nd Circuit this is clearly fair use. Might turn out otherwise in other circuits.

• On the post: Is Gavin Newsom Attacking Walgreens For Its Choices Different From DeSantis Attacking Disney?

  

  Mike Masnick ( profile ), 14 Mar, 2023 @ 02:39pm

  It's weird. Just hours ago Matthew insisted I'd never call out Democrats, because he believes I'm a partisan hack (which is weird because I'm a member of no party and regularly criticize both). But here is a post pretty clearly proving that wrong, and rather than recognizing that maybe his underlying assumptions are wrong, Matthew has to pick at one claim (incorrectly, mind you). Matthew, I do hope that whatever void in your life is causing you to act this way is dealt with. I'm sorry for whatever it is that made you this way. I'm truly sorry that you continue to misrepresent me and my arguments, but mostly that you continue to pretend that evidence of censorship has been shown. Again, this is the very issue I've covered for decades, and I'm ready to call out government shenanigans (from either side) if I see them. I'm actually quite sure that the FBI has done some crazy bad shit. But without evidence, we can't just lie about it and make it up. And no matter how much I'm sure that the government has done bad things, that doesn't mean I'm going to misread documents, like Matt Taibbi has done, and pretend something that isn't there. Similarly, I will not do as Jonathan Turley has done, and pretend that all of the case law says the exact opposite of what it does. I understand where you're coming from, but you are very much letting what you want to be true cloud your ability to look at what has actually been revealed. It's entirely possible that in the next Twitter files we'll finally see some real evidence of government censorship. And I will call it out if we do. But to date, there has been nothing that passes the level of a 1st Amendment violation according to every court in the land.

• On the post: Is Gavin Newsom Attacking Walgreens For Its Choices Different From DeSantis Attacking Disney?

  

  Mike Masnick ( profile ), 14 Mar, 2023 @ 10:34am

  We have the freedom to buy from whoever we want to, and as our elected representative the governor does too.

  Yes, but courts have found that governments/government officials DO NOT in fact have the same level of 1st Amendment rights as people, because they can use those to suppress the rights of others. So if this is done in retaliation, then that can still be a violation.

• On the post: It’s One API, Michael. What Could It Cost? $42,000 Per Month?

  

  Mike Masnick ( profile ), 14 Mar, 2023 @ 09:03am

  You mean just deny the evidence in front of you? OK.

  I never deny evidence. I require evidence. You have never provided any.

  Actual constitutional scholars say you’re blowing smoke.

  No. You found one person who claims otherwise. I could trot out a dozen who say you're wrong. But, more importantly I can (and have, repeatedly!) pointed to the only Constitutional scholars that matter on this: the judges who have decided half a dozen cases on this very topic who have concluded, repeatedly, that there needs to be an element of coercion. You can "nuh uh" over and over again, but the courts have always said you were wrong.

  You are, in essence, saying that the federal government spent several hundred thousand dollars to NOT censor anybody. That all that go investiture in who could say what was completely harmless. Why? Cuz they didn’t say “or else”. Your logic is that it isn’t murder if they miss sometimes.

  No, Matthew. That's not what I'm saying at all. First off, the funding was never for "censorship," anyway. From the grants that I've seen it's always been about studying foreign influence. And, again, I do think that many of the groups were wrong and overreacted. But you are making multiple huge leaps, including (1) that the funding was for "censorship" (2) that the funding resulted in "ban" lists and (3) that these NGOs had some sway or power over what Twitter did and (4) that Twitter did not act of its own regard on all of these decisions. All four of your assumptions are incorrect. I've spent decades fighting government censorship from both political parties. Both of them are terrible and desire to censor speech they don't want. I'm first in line to call out that kind of thing. But one thing I won't do is lie to support a position because I want it to be true.

  Get fucked.

  I do, in all honesty, hope that you're having a nice day, and that one day you learn how to defend points in an honest way.

  Your entire conception of how the law works is actual bullshit.

  I mean, the courts and nearly all scholars agree with me. You have one dude on your side, and he's been widely recognized as a partisan joke for years.

  This whole “it’s only censorship if the government tells you to ban these people, directly, no proxies, and there are threats, and 100% compliance rate” is completely fucking made up.

  By half a dozen courts? And you have none who support your view?

  The government is censoring opposing views, engaging in blatant propaganda, there’s a very clear and obvious two-tiered justice system, and you want to tell me I’m the victim of “spin”. Meanwhile you malign every conservative politician no matter how thin the excuse and justify every liberal politicians exceses no matter how unhinged.

  I mean, dude, it was just last week that I listed out a bunch of examples of me calling out Democrats attacking free speech. And I'm finishing up a post right now calling out Gavin Newsom's attack on free speech. The thing is, when you lie like that, I have the receipts to prove you wrong.

  Yeah man. I’m the one who’s scared.

  If you're not scared, then you're just a fool. I can't decide which is worse. Either way, I still hope that one day you learn how to debate honestly. It's really too bad that you can't.

• On the post: It’s One API, Michael. What Could It Cost? $42,000 Per Month?

  

  Mike Masnick ( profile ), 13 Mar, 2023 @ 11:35pm

  Mike, when will you write an honest piece about how pre-Musk Twitter collaborated w/ the U.S. security state to suppress the free speech rights of our fellow Americans?

  Should evidence of that ever come out, I would write about it first thing. To date, no such evidence has come out.

• On the post: It’s One API, Michael. What Could It Cost? $42,000 Per Month?

  

  Mike Masnick ( profile ), 13 Mar, 2023 @ 11:28pm

  Except, of course, as anyone can see, I did not just say "nun uh." I explained exactly what they show: they show that independent NGOs, who receive some government funding, have created some programs focused on combating foreign influence operations. And, as a part of that, they sometimes release lists of those they believe (rightly or wrongly) are foreign operators. Twitter looks at those lists, and decides what to do with them based on its own policies and criteria. I explained why that's not gov't censorship even in the slightest. For it to be gov't censorship there needs to be demands, there needs to be coercion, and it cannot be "hey does this break your rules?" There also needs to be gov't involvement. So far, there is zero indication that any of the NGOs in question, some of which are well known, well respected, etc., were taking direction from the US government. I literally explained everything, and the reasons for what I am saying is factual and accurate. You just cursed everyone out and said "nuh uh." Which one do you think is more convincing? Matthew, I recognize that you're an angry, scared individual. But, I honestly think that if you took a deep breath every now and again, and looked at the facts, and realized that (perhaps) you're a bit too quick to believe the spin of some very silly people, you might recognize that you made a mistake. You keep seeming to double down, and each time you do, you get angrier and angrier. At the same time, you refuse to back up any of your claims (because that's impossible) and therefore you look silly. And I assume you don't want to look so silly.

• On the post: It’s One API, Michael. What Could It Cost? $42,000 Per Month?

  

  Mike Masnick ( profile ), 13 Mar, 2023 @ 04:31pm

  This whole comment is just you say "nuh uh" over and over. Very convincing, Matthew. Facts matter. I wish you'd learn that.

Next >>