Mike Masnick 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (23101)

• On the post: Disgraced Ex-Sheriff Joe Arpaio Still Costing Taxpayers Hundreds Of Millions Of Dollars

  

  Mike Masnick ( profile ), 02 Mar, 2023 @ 05:16pm

  I updated the article for Tim... Sorry about that.

• On the post: As Twitter Goes Down Yet Again, Report Highlights How Fragile Its Infrastructure Has Become

  

  Mike Masnick ( profile ), 02 Mar, 2023 @ 01:55pm

  Koby: I always considered you a very ignorant and foolish person. Now, with this, I see you're just a garden variety troll, making shit up to cause outrage. I'm sorry I attributed your stupidity to your own lack of knowledge and intelligence, rather than being malicious. But thanks for clarifying.

• On the post: As Twitter Goes Down Yet Again, Report Highlights How Fragile Its Infrastructure Has Become

  

  Mike Masnick ( profile ), 02 Mar, 2023 @ 11:14am

  If I "adored" what you falsely call "viewpoint-based censorship" on the old site, why did I call for the company to make itself "censorproof" by moving to a protocol (something the old management then embraced, only to have Musk move away from that plan)? https://www.techdirt.com/2019/12/11/twitter-makes-bet-protocols-over-platforms/ You keep making this claim, and it's false EVERY single time. I'm not "disparaging Musk" to "bring the censorship back" I'm reporting on reality to highlight how to build better social media systems, especially protocol based ones that are resistant to actual censorship.

• On the post: As Twitter Goes Down Yet Again, Report Highlights How Fragile Its Infrastructure Has Become

  

  Mike Masnick ( profile ), 02 Mar, 2023 @ 11:12am

  That's Tiktok, not Twitter, Koby. https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/news/2023/03/01/tiktok-screen-time-limit/11372810002/

• On the post: Taamneh Case Gave Us A Glimpse Of The Horror Websites Would Face In A Post-Section 230 World

  

  Mike Masnick ( profile ), 01 Mar, 2023 @ 11:50am

  In discussions I have with people, the blanket protection 230 offers is a hard sell, and they Want To Do Something about doxxing (for example) and whatever they consider to be obvious lies.

  The problem is that as soon as you enter "something must be done" territory that removes any element of 230, then you set things up so that each of these things needs to be litigated and you get the mess above in which you're arguing in court the exact definition of knowledge and mindstate... and that is effectively the same as removing 230 altogether.

• On the post: New DeSantis-Endorsed Florida Bill An Outright Attack On The 1st Amendment And Free Speech

  

  Mike Masnick ( profile ), 01 Mar, 2023 @ 12:19am

  There isn’t even any intersection between 1A and defamation law, except for the one made up by Sullivan v NYT.

  Boy, you say a lot of ignorant shit, but this might be the most ignorant and the shittiest.

  Never have I seen someone spill more ink on a subject he knows nothing about.

  Projection, thy name is Matthew M. Bennett.

• On the post: New DeSantis-Endorsed Florida Bill An Outright Attack On The 1st Amendment And Free Speech

  

  Mike Masnick ( profile ), 01 Mar, 2023 @ 12:13am

  No, defamation law (which exists, everywhere in the US) is not a “This bill is a full frontal attack on the 1st Amendment”.

  This sentence doesn't make any sense. Want to try again?

  It’s a civil proceeding between individuals (because 1 person lied about another) not a criminal matter nor the government trying to stifle speech.

  Yes... and part of that civil procedure is using the state to enforce punishment for speech. This is why courts have long held that defamation has to have a high bar to be considered compatible with the 1st Amendment. This isn't difficult Matthew. Saying it's a civil proceeding does not mean that 1st Amendment does not apply. Because the state is involved in the form of the law and the courts.

  And yeah, Journalist’s using “anonymous sources” to just straight make things up, or turn petty gossip into news stories, has really gotten out of hand. We saw it a LOT during the Trump years but it’s become a general problem as well.

  Using an anonymous source to make up something, if that something is defamatory, would be an easy defamation victory as that would be perfect evidence of knowingly falsifying the information, which meets the actual malice standard. No need to change the law.

  There should NOT be any special protection to being a “journalist”

  There is none. This law, on the other hand, would strip basic 1st Amendment protections from journalists, by LOWERING the standard for them to be sued as compared to non-journalists. That, alone, is a 1st Amendment violation (in that it targets journalists and involves the state saying who is or who is not a journalist). I know, I know, Matthew, you pretend you're libertarian, but it's pretty fucking rick that you think it's fine for the state to define who is a journalist and then stripping them of their rights.

  And being a journalist doesn’t allow you to just make up shit and lie.

  Of course not. Defamation law currently handles that just fine. As Fox News is quickly learning.

  Defamation law is not in conflict with the 1A and NYT v. Sullivan is basically the only connection between the two.

  Lol. Dude. You didn't just say that? You can't honestly be that stupid.

  Just because you’re in office should not be carte blanche for journalists to lie about you without recourse, nor anyone else for that matter, which they routinely do.

  Again, defamation law already allows that. But good to know that for all your talk of supporting free speech, you (1) don't understand it at all and (2) are a huge fucking hypocrite, who supports the government being able to silence speech.

• On the post: New DeSantis-Endorsed Florida Bill An Outright Attack On The 1st Amendment And Free Speech

  

  Mike Masnick ( profile ), 28 Feb, 2023 @ 01:02pm

  There is no first amendment right to publish false information about other people.

  That's correct. And the NYT v. Sullivan standard does not say otherwise.

  Particularly not if the technicalities are taken away.

  There are no technicalities. There is just due process and the 1st Amendment. I'm sorry you hate free speech Koby.

  Publishers should be publishing retractions and apologies, and shouldn’t try to weasel out of a lawsuit because actual malice can’t be proven.

  If you can't prove actual malice then you haven't shown defamation. That's the whole fucking point.

  Another common technicality is that publishers can slander someone as long as the subject is a public figure, and actual malice cannot be proven.

  You don't understand how actual malice works, huh?

  Another common technicality is that publishers can slander someone as long as the subject is a public figure, and actual malice cannot be proven.

  It's not a loophole dipshit. It's the 1st Amendment standard to avoid SLAPP suits that are used solely to suppress ACCURATE REPORTING. You're so full of shit that you're willing to throw out the 1st Amendment to protect your team. Pathetic.

• On the post: New DeSantis-Endorsed Florida Bill An Outright Attack On The 1st Amendment And Free Speech

  

  Mike Masnick ( profile ), 28 Feb, 2023 @ 10:39am

  In a day and age where everyone with a smartphone is a reporter, journalists ought not get special privilege just because they work for a large organization.

  They don't. Though, this bill will take away their 1st amendment rights solely based on who they work for.

  Nor should public figures deserve fewer rights.

  They don't have fewer rights.

  Especially when news organizations transform anyone they discuss, by nature, into a public figure. News reporters don’t have a special license to slander.

  News reporters have never had a "special license to slander." But thank you taking the mask off and showing how much you hate the 1st Amendment, Koby.

• On the post: Getting Kicked Off Social Media For Breaking Its Rules Is Nothing Like Being Sent To A Prison Camp For Retweeting Criticism Of A Dictator

  

  Mike Masnick ( profile ), 28 Feb, 2023 @ 12:57am

  Masnick has not just defended the right of companies to engage in viewpoint-based censorship

  Do you deny that companies have that right? I have defended the right, but not the practice. And I have yet to see any evidence that the companies engage in "viewpoint-based censorship." I have seen them set rules to stop harassment and abuse. And I have seen you prefer to harass and abuse people. And then, as a weird bit of cognitive dissonance, insist that your abuse and harassment can't possibly be abuse and harassment, and therefore it must be "viewpoint-based censorship." You're wrong.

  He has stated that such censorship is beneficial and supports free speech, because he believes that silencing opinions he hates will lead to more people whose opinions he supports feeling comfortable to speak

  This is, again, a total misrepresentation of what I said. I said that a private company has the right to enforce its own rules in an effort to encourage the type of community it wishes to enable. And it's that right that enables more free speech, because without it, fewer companies would be willing to host speech, because very few companies want to deal with constant abuse and harassment. You, an admitted abuser and harasser, just can't take the fact that people call you on your shit, and you've had to face consequences on it. You're a little snowflake who can't take it that the marketplace of ideas has rejected your ideas. You're everything you claim to hate. And you're too pathetic to even recognize that.

• On the post: Getting Kicked Off Social Media For Breaking Its Rules Is Nothing Like Being Sent To A Prison Camp For Retweeting Criticism Of A Dictator

  

  Mike Masnick ( profile ), 28 Feb, 2023 @ 12:39am

  The important thing is that Masnick knows what I’m referring to

  I have no earthly idea what you think you're referring to. Your claims that I have "lied" seem to revolve around your own inability to understand what I have written mixed in with a sprinkle of a weird obsession with Elon Musk, a man who has (according to your own terminology) shadowbanned you on Twitter.

  even tho he doesn’t want to admit, he knows I’m right.

  I have yet to see you be correct about almost anything. You have an uncanny ability to be extremely wrong, and often confused. You are quite full of yourself for someone so consistently wrong. Most of the time when you accuse me of "lying" it's either because you don't understand the details and nuances of what's being addressed, and simply can't handle the actual truth, or because you feel the need to misrepresent fairly basic concepts that every other person here can grasp. If you can show that I lied do so.

• On the post: Supreme Court Denies Cert To NSA Case, Allows State Secret Privilege To Roll On Unaltered

  

  Mike Masnick ( profile ), 28 Feb, 2023 @ 12:28am

  What makes surveillance illegal?

  The 4th Amendment if done without a warrant.

  Why should anyone, including the government, be prohibited from assembling publicly available information, even large amounts of it?

  The 702 program in question has NOTHING to do with "publicly available information." It's the upstream program in which the NSA was able to tap the internet backbones and collect and/or scan all traffic that was leaving or entering the US, searching on certain parameters, and collecting all sorts of private data. Beyond that, once collected, the collection was open to being searched by the FBI for totally different reasons, again without a warrant. Your ignorance on the topic is noted, but you should educate yourself.

  This article seems like an unholy bastard child of Cushing’s obsession with denigrating law enforcement and Bode’s obsession with forcing “privacy” on everyone, even people who couldn’t care less.

  You comment seems like it's from a very ignorant fool who doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about.

• On the post: Getting Kicked Off Social Media For Breaking Its Rules Is Nothing Like Being Sent To A Prison Camp For Retweeting Criticism Of A Dictator

  

  Mike Masnick ( profile ), 27 Feb, 2023 @ 01:02pm

  You adored the viewpoint-based censorship that the large generic speech platforms used to provide for you, and you are so willfully blind in your hatred of contrary opinions that you pretend such censorship enhances free speech rather than destroying it.

  As I just wrote about, this is flat out false, and is clear to anyone who can actually read what I've written over the years. I have never supported "viewpoint-based censorship" nor would I. I have supported the right of companies to moderate how they want on their own private property, even as I frequently criticized their choices, and focus, in doing so. How one gets from supporting the right of a private property owner to exclude, to assuming that I support "viewpoint based censorship" (something, again, that has yet to be shown to be a driving factor in moderation decisions) is really just shining a spotlight on your own confusion and ignorance.

• On the post: Getting Kicked Off Social Media For Breaking Its Rules Is Nothing Like Being Sent To A Prison Camp For Retweeting Criticism Of A Dictator

  

  Mike Masnick ( profile ), 27 Feb, 2023 @ 12:58pm

  I do read Techdirt. I write much of it. I have never defended "view-point censorship" nor would I. I have defended the rights of companies to moderate their own private spaces. I have also, quite regularly, criticized the companies for doing a bad job at that moderation, often by willing to pull down content too quickly. But I have never defended "view-point censorship" by Twitter or anyone else. Maybe you're confused? Oh, wait. You're definitely confused, and you've built up this myth in your mind because you can't stand to admit that you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

• On the post: Rather Than Making The Internet Safe For Kids, Make Your Kids Safe For The Real World

  

  Mike Masnick ( profile ), 25 Feb, 2023 @ 05:57pm

  When is Masnick going to stop spewing his personal BS about Section 230? The guy is doing everything he can to post his self-serving pro-corporate propaganda that harms everyday consumers by taking away any internet accountability and privacy. Can’t wait for Section 230 to be repealed so Masnick will shut his immoral piehole.

  I always find comments like this amusing. If you take away 230, you get LESS responsibility and LESS privacy. You get less responsibility, because now things fall back to the 1st Amendment, which requires knowledge for liability. Thus websites now have MUCH LESS incentive to moderate or to take ANY responsibility for the content on their site. Doing so gives them more liability. Looking the other way takes away the liability. Guess which one people will do? As for privacy, without 230, smaller companies won't be able to survive or compete, leaving power only to the largest internet companies, the most rapacious ones who suck up as much data as possible. In other words, you're the one pushing a pro-big tech, less responsibility agenda. You're just too ignorant to realize that.

• On the post: Rather Than Making The Internet Safe For Kids, Make Your Kids Safe For The Real World

  

  Mike Masnick ( profile ), 25 Feb, 2023 @ 05:53pm

  That's not Matthew. Note that this one has the middle initial "N." rather than Matthew's which is "M." It looks like someone has been trolling Matthew this past week as Matthew N. Bennett. Kinda annoying, honestly... No need to impersonate the trolls.

• On the post: Twitter Is Correct To Move Away From SMS Two Factor Authentication, Though, There Are Much Better Ways To Do It

  

  Mike Masnick ( profile ), 23 Feb, 2023 @ 11:42pm

  Well, if you’re willing to accept a web-based “authenticator app”, anyway. Some phones have web browsers (presumably usable for “Twitter Lite”) but no third-party apps. Obsolete phones, for example, and even if they can’t connect to cell networks anymore, people might be using them on wi-fi.

  Okay, um, and what percentage of Twitter users who are using 2FA do you think fall into the camp of people who only have such obsolete phones?

• On the post: Your ‘Simple Solution’ To Section 230 Is Bad: Julia Angwin Edition

  

  Mike Masnick ( profile ), 23 Feb, 2023 @ 03:43pm

  That Supreme Court case right now I think has more to do with States Rights.

  I think you're thinking of different cases (i.e., that Texas / Florida cases that seem likely to be heard next term). The current Supreme Court case has nothing to do with states rights.

• On the post: Twitter Is Correct To Move Away From SMS Two Factor Authentication, Though, There Are Much Better Ways To Do It

  

  Mike Masnick ( profile ), 21 Feb, 2023 @ 10:08pm

  Not sure I see that as a legitimate concern. They're already accessing Twitter somehow, no? If so they can also access an authenticator app. Yes, there's a concern that people will not switch. But they idea that they CAN'T just doesn't seem realistic to me.

• On the post: Engineers Gave Elon’s Tweets Special Treatment Because Elon Freaked Out That A Joe Biden Tweet Got More Engagement

  

  Mike Masnick ( profile ), 15 Feb, 2023 @ 01:10pm

  Don’t want to see Musk in the news, then convince him to stop acting like a drunken child.

  Exactly. If I could be here in a year saying "Musk really turned things around and fixed up Twitter" I'd be thrilled to be able to do so. But, so far...

Next >>