Mike Masnick 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (23354)

• On the post: We Need A More Serious Discussion About Suicide And AI Chatbots

  

  Mike Masnick ( profile ), 18 May, 2026 @ 04:57pm

  Just to be clear (this came up in the last conversation on this topic, too), it's not the monkey selfie scenario at all. That was entirely about who can create a work that gets a copyright. And that is definitively "humans." That is not the same as "is this speech protected by the First Amendment?" There is plenty of speech that can get no copyright that is still protected by the First Amendment. Indeed, copyright itself is something of an exception to the First Amendment in the first place. So the two issues are entirely distinct.

• On the post: We Need A More Serious Discussion About Suicide And AI Chatbots

  

  Mike Masnick ( profile ), 18 May, 2026 @ 04:55pm

  Robots don’t have free speech rights, or independent speech. This is where AC is commimg from. If you really want to get on the same page, the question you would need to answer is “Who’s speach is the Chatbot’s output?”

  The answer to that question is more complicated then you make it out to be, but no matter what the answer, in almost every case, that speech is still protected under the First Amendment, so to that end, it generally doesn't matter for the underlying point. If the speech is protected, then it means you can't regulate the speech in the manner most people would like it to be regulated, and (again) that's probably for the best long term unless you want Trump to have a lot more say in what computers can and can't do.

• On the post: We Need A More Serious Discussion About Suicide And AI Chatbots

  

  Mike Masnick ( profile ), 18 May, 2026 @ 03:36pm

  Of course, as I explained to you, chatbot output is speech. And if it's not considered speech, then we're in a world of hurt. If it's not speech then Congress can pass a law saying "no more woke AI." You want the Trump-run GOP to be able to do that? You want him to be able to declare that AI tools must repeat MAGA talking points? No? Then you want for AI output to be considered speech. Just as I said. But I get the feeling you're not someone who wants to think through the consequences of what you have decided must be true.

• On the post: We Need A More Serious Discussion About Suicide And AI Chatbots

  

  Mike Masnick ( profile ), 18 May, 2026 @ 03:34pm

  There are plenty of people who disagree with me who care clearly thinking through the issues and that's (obviously) fine. But if someone replies to me without thinking, or in accepting unproven narratives, I'm going to point it out. If you said something I considered to be a sign of non-thinking, and I called you on it, I'm not going to be sorry about it. Again, there are plenty of people who I disagree with, even those who write for Techdirt and I don't say they're not thinking. So to have me call that out, it would be because you said something I consider fundamentally stupid. Did you?

• On the post: We Need A More Serious Discussion About Suicide And AI Chatbots

  

  Mike Masnick ( profile ), 18 May, 2026 @ 03:31pm

  I mean, I agree with everything you say there, but I'm not sure why you think (1) I haven't told AI bros that over and over again or (2) that I have any real influence among them regarding that. I think that the leading AI companies have done a ridiculously stupid job in overselling and overpushing the tech and if I could get them to stop, I would.

• On the post: We Need A More Serious Discussion About Suicide And AI Chatbots

  

  Mike Masnick ( profile ), 18 May, 2026 @ 02:56pm

  Hell, I'd argue that a large majority of its uses are bad and that the crash will be very bad (and well deserved). I'd also argue that you shouldn't trust anything that any of the big AI companies say. But also, I've both written and published articles critical of AI, and on the whole, I'd say that Karl and Cathy are both pretty (reasonably) skeptical about the tech, whereas Tim Geigner and I are generally more optimistic about a narrow category of thoughtful uses. My larger issue is that I worry the kneejerk "ALL AI BAD AND USELESS" viewpoint is really problematic for the future of tech and innovation as a whole. Learning how to support good uses of the tech and to regulate appropriately is important. But I get that for some people, there can be no nuance at all, and you either think AI is a new deity or it is a new evil. And so people like to lump me into one or the other camps. Easier than thinking.

• On the post: Let’s Help Children, Not Trial Lawyers

  

  Mike Masnick ( profile ), 17 May, 2026 @ 03:29pm

  You could have just admitted "sorry, I was wrong." The only case I've seen of them lobbying against a right to repair law was a problematic one. On the whole they're absolutely for them. Ah well. I stand by this piece and I stand by CTA doing a ton of really great work. I get that you live in a fantasy world where everyone is "good" or "bad" but some of us live in the real world where we agree on some things and disagree on others. CTA has gone tremendous good for the world over the years. When you grow up and realize the world is not the Manichean world you wish it to be, feel free to come back and discuss real issues, otherwise perhaps Harry Potter fandom boards are more your speed.

• On the post: Let’s Help Children, Not Trial Lawyers

  

  Mike Masnick ( profile ), 16 May, 2026 @ 06:19pm

  What? CTA is in favor of right to repair, and have worked with iFixit on a model bill. https://resource-recycling.com/recycling/2025/01/31/right-to-repair-movement-continues-to-grow/ They've also partnered with iFixit on things like 1201 exemptions for repair: https://www.regulations.gov/comment/COLC-2017-0007-0030 So you're just 100% wrong here and should apologize. And also, while I might not always agree with everything they focus on, in my 30 years working on these issues, CTA is on the right side way, way, way more often than they're wrong. And on what's written here, they're right. And, they're on the right side on right to repair as well. And they're on the right side on patents and copyright issues as well. But, as always, you have to insist that they must be evil. It must be exhausting, Bloof, that no one is so pure and righteous as you are.

• On the post: South Africa Used AI To Write Its Now Withdrawn AI Policy. The Citations Were Fake.

  

  Mike Masnick ( profile ), 15 May, 2026 @ 02:49pm

  Ok. Then I think you truly are a fool with no understanding of the history of regulation. Sorry. We just live in fundamental different realities. Yes, it's true for some regulations. I'm not against all regulations. But you'd have to be entirely ignorant of the history of regulatory capture or how laws get made to assume that all regulations are inherently helpful, rather than harmful. I mean that's just painfully naive to the point of me wondering how you could actually be a real lawyer.

• On the post: South Africa Used AI To Write Its Now Withdrawn AI Policy. The Citations Were Fake.

  

  Mike Masnick ( profile ), 15 May, 2026 @ 02:47pm

  I can consider the perspective. I understand where you're coming from. I've been having these kinds of debates for years, which is partly why I find them so frustrating. This is nothing new. It's just "I don't like this type of speech so I think we should allow censorship." Specifically to the point of "impersonating doctors" I have yet to see a single case of it doing so in a manner that a company was deliberately misleading users into believing they were talking to a real doctor/therapist/whatever. I think if they were doing that we already have false advertising laws that take care of that. What you really seem to be complaining about is that when users WHO KNOW THE TOOLS THEY'RE USING use them in ways you personally disagree with, you think there should be censorship. I just fundamentally disagree.

• On the post: South Africa Used AI To Write Its Now Withdrawn AI Policy. The Citations Were Fake.

  

  Mike Masnick ( profile ), 15 May, 2026 @ 11:50am

  A knife is sharp. It can cut you. An LLM responds to you with words. Speech. It cannot cut. It cannot cause physical pain. How you interpret that speech may have all sorts of impact, but that's part of being a human. We allow speech that may harm or may cause distress. We have very few limits on speech because if we don't we lose so much more. So, no, I do not take someone to be a serious person if they claim that a words generating machine is somehow more dangerous than a knife. It's not. It cannot be.

• On the post: South Africa Used AI To Write Its Now Withdrawn AI Policy. The Citations Were Fake.

  

  Mike Masnick ( profile ), 15 May, 2026 @ 09:42am

  Comparing knives to a tool like LLMs is fundamentally an unserious position. And I also think that anyone who thinks chatbots are inherently dangerous (or even as dangerous as knives) has been taken in by a nonsense moral panic.

• On the post: South Africa Used AI To Write Its Now Withdrawn AI Policy. The Citations Were Fake.

  

  Mike Masnick ( profile ), 15 May, 2026 @ 01:16am

  You're not actually that naive, are you? Seriously?

• On the post: South Africa Used AI To Write Its Now Withdrawn AI Policy. The Citations Were Fake.

  

  Mike Masnick ( profile ), 15 May, 2026 @ 01:15am

  I find that take just fundamentally at odds with common sense. I mean, sure if you want to embrace the ridiculous notion that no products should be on the market unless they're 100% safe, but anyone who thinks that is fundamentally an unserious person. Are you?

• On the post: South Africa Used AI To Write Its Now Withdrawn AI Policy. The Citations Were Fake.

  

  Mike Masnick ( profile ), 14 May, 2026 @ 05:47pm

  You can misrepresent all you want, but normal people can read understand the sort of nuance you seem incapable of understanding.

  1. On the AI mental health stuff, the article pointed out that there is evidence that since people are already using these tools for mental health, applying liability would likely make the systems PERFORM WORSE FOR PUBLIC HEALTH leading to MORE DEAD PEOPLE. You seem to support this.

  2. Here, I am saying that of course politicians shouldn't be relying on AI to generate their laws without then reviewing the output.

  These things are not in conflict. I am not suggesting that people should absolutely use AI for mental health help. I am looking at what will lead to FEWER FUCKING DEATHS.

• On the post: South Africa Used AI To Write Its Now Withdrawn AI Policy. The Citations Were Fake.

  

  Mike Masnick ( profile ), 14 May, 2026 @ 04:31pm

  It is not the interpretation of this article that is the problem. It is the false claims about what I support. But also "The Phule's" history on this site insisting that censorship is good and their ongoing effort to insist that if only we had censorship magically the bad people would go away.

• On the post: South Africa Used AI To Write Its Now Withdrawn AI Policy. The Citations Were Fake.

  

  Mike Masnick ( profile ), 14 May, 2026 @ 09:19am

  It is astounding how much you misrepresent my positions on things. You either cannot comprehend nuance or you repeatedly feel the need to lie. Which is it?

• On the post: Supreme Court Breaks Another Election To Make Sure Black Voters Are Disenfranchised

  

  Mike Masnick ( profile ), 13 May, 2026 @ 01:20pm

  Long enough it doesn’t matter, oh, and the precedent will also be better.

  My goodness are you easy to bait into admitting you are full of shit. You claimed the ruling was overturned. I pointed out you were factually incorrect, and now you admit that the only purpose the stay serves is to be "long enough it doesn't matter." You have now admitted that you support this sort of lawless action by the court to effectively block a ruling to the point of irreparable harm "long enough it doesn't matter." If you were smart enough to understand the law, you'd be smart enough to recognize that conservative scholars try not to admit exactly what you just admitted: this is a lawless action designed to get to a specific result, and that's why it's "long enough it doesn't matter" that they won't engage in an actual merits ruling. You're just too stupid to realize what you admitted. Fucking incredible.

• On the post: Trump Already Has His ‘Get Out Of Jail Free’ Card. Now He Wants A ‘Get Out Of IRS Audits’ Card

  

  Mike Masnick ( profile ), 13 May, 2026 @ 11:07am

  What I love about you continuing to comment here is that you continue to present perhaps the purest specimen of the kind of delusion one needs to go through to be a Trump supporter. It's like a pristine and perfect example of that delusion. If one were just to go on X, you see snippets of it, but giving you the space here to present your kind of obsequious Trump ass kissing is just... like tapping into a deep well of pure unadulterated MAGA delusional fervor. It's amazing.

• On the post: Supreme Court Breaks Another Election To Make Sure Black Voters Are Disenfranchised

  

  Mike Masnick ( profile ), 13 May, 2026 @ 09:17am

  None of this matters, at all, he was overruled.

  Just as a point of fact, I know you keep saying this, but it is literally false. The lower court was not "overruled." The Supreme Court simply put a stay on the ruling. I understand that you're an engineer who thinks he understands the law, but since this has been explained to you multiple times, it's worth pointing out to others that you remain full of shit. The scenarios are identical. In both cases we have maps that have been ruled to be unconstitutional. In the two cases where new maps would help Republicans they have been helped along by SCOTUS. In the one case where it would help Dems, it was blocked. I know in your tiny mind you think that there is some distinguishing factor, but it is clearly partisan, just as your pathetic attempts to justify it are. You have no principles. You just want to kiss the ass of a guy who would gleefully feed you to sharks for a buck.

Next >>