MyNameHere 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (633) comment rss

  • On the post: The Nation's Telcos Are Hemorrhaging Customers Because They Refuse To Upgrade Their Networks

    MyNameHere ( profile ), 10 Aug, 2017 @ 05:20am

    Copper has it's limitations, and the phone companies know that. It's a really big problem in the US where outside of the main centers you have fairly low population density and long distances to cover. DSL has a max effective connection length of less than 6000 meters, or about 3.5 miles. It is also fairly limited in terms of speed and overall capacity, except in very, very short runs.

    Fiber optic, on the other hand, can run pretty darn far. More importantly, fiber only solves the biggest issues (distance to the central office or DSLAM) if you have fiber to the house.

    Fiber to the neighborhood seems like a good idea, but that requires building remote buildings to terminate the fiber and distribute to customers. It also doesn't really solve the issue of houses being spaced far apart, as the restictions of the remaining copper would still be in the way.

    More of these companies appear to be looking towards wireless as a solution. Rewiring their customers to fiber just doesn't seem to be in the cards.

  • On the post: North Carolina Passes An Entirely Misguided Restore Campus Free Speech Act

    MyNameHere ( profile ), 09 Aug, 2017 @ 09:31pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "Expressing offensive ideas such as “we should legalize rape” or “Black people need to go back to Africa” in public does not deserve protection from consequences"

    You are still missing the point. If the speech is legal, why is it being censored before it happens?

    The schools generally shut down events because they feel that they cannot provide adequate security. Why? Because people aren't protesting with their voices, they are protesting with physical violence, occupation, and fighting. The schools want to avoid having to pay the price because people resort to violent protest to shout down legal opinions they do not like.

    I am also not sure where you get your examples. "advocating rape" is a weird topic, and certainly advocating illegal acts may in fact by unprotected speech. "All blacks back to Africa" is distasteful speech, but it appears to be protected by the first amendment. Are you suggesting that Ann Coulter or Milo whatever was advocating rape or sending blacks back to Africa?

  • On the post: North Carolina Passes An Entirely Misguided Restore Campus Free Speech Act

    MyNameHere ( profile ), 09 Aug, 2017 @ 08:28pm

    Re: Re:

    "That is still protected speech, though. And nothing is legally preventing the shouted-down from shouting back or expressing themselves through other avenues of expression."

    A shouting contest becomes one of numbers, majority rules. That isn't what free speech is about. Nobody should be forced away from one avenue of speech because someone else disagrees with them.

    "In fairness, the opinions that get people punched often resemble the kind of rhetoric that would go over well at a Klan rally. Justified? No. Understandable? Hell yes."

    The thing is, if you believe in free speech, and the speech itself is not illegal, then you need to hold your nose and support their right to say it, even if you don't agree with it. If the Klan's speech is hate speech and illegal, then damn them all you like. But if it's legal, a true supporter of free speech needs to recognize it's still valid speech.

    That's why I say what happened to Ann Coulter and Milo whathisface is shameful. If what they are saying it not illegal, taking actions that force schools to cancel such events is shameful, no matter how you feel about the content.

    "Being denied a platform—or being protested while on that platform—does not necessarily infringe upon the free speech rights of a given person."

    A platform not equally offered is in itself a form of censorship. It means that the rights of the few are diminished by the complaints of the many, and that isn't what free speech is all about.

    "Inviting speakers who advocate for horrible ideas (e.g., advocating for legalized rape) and threaten the safety of other students (e.g., outing a trans student against their will) is just as wrong."

    Again, if the speech is illegal, then it's not free speech and there is no issue. You have to be really careful here, you may not like the speech, but if it's legal speech, then you need to support their right to express it, even if you don't like it.

  • On the post: Techdirt: Now With More Free Speech Reporting

    MyNameHere ( profile ), 09 Aug, 2017 @ 08:12pm

    Re: 'You can say what you want' does not equal 'Everyone has to listen when you say it'

    Free speech does mean that others should not be allowed to decide if my speech is more or less prominent then theirs.

    When you click flag (and you know you do), you are saying "my opinion is more valid than this", which is the first step towards tamping down and making less available opinions you don't agree with.

    Flagging should be reserved for spam and name calling. That way, we might never see another comment from PaulT again! :)

  • On the post: North Carolina Passes An Entirely Misguided Restore Campus Free Speech Act

    MyNameHere ( profile ), 09 Aug, 2017 @ 08:07pm

    I think you will find that one (or more) people that Techdirt doesn't like has been posting with very long subject lines. So someone adds a filter for very long subject lines (setting it at about 100 characters) and everything else gets "moderated".

    Those comments may appear later on, but the discussion will long be over before anyone notices them!

  • On the post: AT&T Lies Again, Insists Net Neutrality Rules Will Hurt First Responders

    MyNameHere ( profile ), 09 Aug, 2017 @ 07:56pm

    Re:

    Actually, what they are asserting is that, given a limited amount of total bandwidth for any given customer or service, there is no way to assure all packets and all data reach their destination in a timely manner. If you have network congestion, the lack of the ability to provide QoS or to have preferential treatment of certain traffic over others would be an issue.

    Oversold capacity is an issue, as are applications and services that require much more bandwidth than is normal for internet usage. it's simply not economically viable in the US for companies to set up their networks to meet full peak demand at all times. Google already proved that.

  • On the post: Disney Pulls Content From Netflix As Users Face An Annoying, Confusing Rise In Streaming Exclusivity Silos

    MyNameHere ( profile ), 09 Aug, 2017 @ 07:33pm

    Re:

    Do tell!

  • On the post: Techdirt: Now With More Free Speech Reporting

    MyNameHere ( profile ), 09 Aug, 2017 @ 07:07pm

    Re: Re:

    Fine? Nope. I think it's a massive damning of the US justice system. It's so complex and has so many avenues for action that you can "win" merely by bankrupting the other side. That is incredibly sad, actually.

    My comments are only that Mike and the Floor64 crew appear to be starting to set up the "post lawsuit" future, which may or may not be on this site. It's actually a pretty realistic thing to do, as no matter the end results, Techdirt is already wounded and may never actually recover to it's full power.

  • On the post: Techdirt: Now With More Free Speech Reporting

    MyNameHere ( profile ), 09 Aug, 2017 @ 07:02pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    No, they aren't destroyed, but they are put on a lower level and thus treated unequally. That is a form of censorship, like it or not.

    Look at the posts flagged in this discussion. Aside from PaulT calling people names, the rest are perfectly normal and acceptable ranges of opinions. But some people feel the need to flag anything they don't agree with.

    The difference is subtle, but huge at the same time. Can you imagine if everything you posted required extra clicks to be read? Would you think that fair or equal?

  • On the post: Disney Pulls Content From Netflix As Users Face An Annoying, Confusing Rise In Streaming Exclusivity Silos

    MyNameHere ( profile ), 09 Aug, 2017 @ 06:55pm

    Re: Re:

    Yes, then the consumers will be back pining for the days of cable where they could pay one company a fixed amount and get access to everything.

    Be careful what you wish for, you might get it. In this case, the "cord cutting" has lead to the inevitable, as companies move to profit as much as they can from this delivery system.

  • On the post: North Carolina Passes An Entirely Misguided Restore Campus Free Speech Act

    MyNameHere ( profile ), 09 Aug, 2017 @ 07:28pm

    One of the issues is that free speech has turned from stating your opinion to yelling down the opinion of others.

    Free speech use to be a positive. Haul out your actual soap box, stand in the middle of the park, and yell out your opinion as loud as you like. People might laugh, people might point. but you could do it.

    Now you try to bring your soap box and people beat you up for showing up and expressing an opinion they don't like.

    People seem to have confused unpopular speech with illegal speech. Instead we have a mob rules problem.

    Remember Ann Coulter being blocked from speaking at a Uni? I think she's a dumb (insert foul word here) but I also respect her rights to express her opinions - providing that those opinions are legal. That universities have to cancel her legal speech because of mob rules is a really sad thing.

    Yes, the mob is expressing their opinion. But their free speech ends where it impinges on the free speech of others. When the schools have to shut down events because of threats of violence and destruction of school property, something is really wrong. Laws like this, while perhaps overbroad, are an attempt to find a solution to this oppression of rights and opinions of others.

  • On the post: Complaint Filed Over Sketchy VPN Service

    MyNameHere ( profile ), 09 Aug, 2017 @ 06:33pm

    The funny part is a third party VPN has all the makings of a man in the middle attack. There is no simple way to know what (if anything) a VPN company is looking at. Are they logging all your URLs? Are they capturing passwords?

    Considering this one was recommended by Techdirt (and Torrentfreak, I think) it's hard to say any of them are much good now.

  • On the post: Techdirt: Now With More Free Speech Reporting

    MyNameHere ( profile ), 09 Aug, 2017 @ 09:42am

    Re: Re:

    No tin foil required... I am just pointing to more than a few dots that exist, you can draw your own lines between them to see what animal you draw.

    As for Mr Stone, "So what?": Well, let's see. First and foremost, you have to ask "are we getting the full story?". For a site that pushes hard on transparency, not revealing how crowdfunding is going, and not mentioning that the key group that they are partnering with also just happens to handle the funds. I don't imply any improper actions, just a weird lack of transparency up front. Since Mike is usually verbose as can be, the small oversight really stands out.

    It's just one of those things.

  • On the post: Disney Pulls Content From Netflix As Users Face An Annoying, Confusing Rise In Streaming Exclusivity Silos

    MyNameHere ( profile ), 09 Aug, 2017 @ 04:34pm

    Congratulations Karl, you have selected cord cutting. Tell him what he's won Johnny!

    Right you are Dave! First, Karl has won short term initial savings, as he cuts the cord and feels all smug because he isn't paying the cable guys anymore. That is followed by the satisfaction of selecting only the things he likes via Netflix or Amazon. Karl also wins inevitable fragmentation and the frustration of having to pay for multiple programming sources, managing multiple accounts and paying late fees or losing service when he forgets to renew. Finally, Karl gets to pay more for less, finally spending more each month for fragmented services than he paid for cable. Congratulations Karl, you earned it!

  • On the post: Techdirt: Now With More Free Speech Reporting

    MyNameHere ( profile ), 09 Aug, 2017 @ 08:14am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Calling someone a "disingenuous prick" should be something that is flagged. Nobody else way calling anyone names until you showed up.

    Will the community act to flag the aggressor?

  • On the post: Techdirt: Now With More Free Speech Reporting

    MyNameHere ( profile ), 09 Aug, 2017 @ 06:20am

    Re: Re:

    Actually, comments are often flagged because they raise unpopular points of view or actively disagree with the original poster.

    Some people find the truth abusive, I guess.

  • On the post: Section 230 Matters. Congress Needs To Be Reminded Of That

    MyNameHere ( profile ), 09 Aug, 2017 @ 05:44am

    Re: Re:

    I agree to a point. Part of the question is who is offering a "service" and who is a willing participant in illegal activities or is encouraging non-protected (aka illegal) speech.

    Too often, it seems section 230 is used as another way of separating the income from the bad acts. It also acts as a wall to protect those bad acts by making it nearly impossible to get subscriber or user information in the course of a lawsuit or legal action.

    It's much like bit torrent and piracy. Bit Torrent the protocol isn't at fault, but those who use it are. Having a "service" be able to protect people who are actively pirating and profit from that active piracy is wrong.

  • On the post: Techdirt: Now With More Free Speech Reporting

    MyNameHere ( profile ), 09 Aug, 2017 @ 08:54am

    I will express my opinion. PaulT will probably hate it, but if he calls me names or insults me about it, I hope the community will flag his abusive posts.

    My opinion is this: Mike has figured out that Techdirt has run it's course, and potentially is doomed the result of a lawsuit that he may win, but will either go broke getting there or will have to settle long before it's over.

    Unless, of course, he can raise enough money from people and other groups by wrapping himself in the free speech flag and trying really hard to be a martyr for the cause.

    The I Support Journalism thing is fun. It's a crowd funding site that doesn't appear to disclose how much funding it's getting, doesn't have a goal, and doesn't appear to report any of that information. It's hard to read, but it appears to be more "step2" than "techdirt" in it's success range.

    The other part that makes it interesting is this quote:

    "I'm happy to announce today that we've further partnered with the Freedom of the Press Foundation"

    Yet, one of the four members of the steering committee of the isupportjournalism site "Trevor Timm
    Executive Director, Freedom Of The Press Foundation". Oh, the only article I could find on their site about Techdirt was written by Timm himself. Hmm!

    You can draw your own conclusions, but it appears that either a takeover is in the making, a merger, or just an in kind trade of space for Freedom of the Press and others to rant to a much larger audience than they command.

  • On the post: Section 230 Matters. Congress Needs To Be Reminded Of That

    MyNameHere ( profile ), 09 Aug, 2017 @ 01:32am

    What you are seeing here is the sort of pushback that should be expected. The Congress and such are starting to realize that section 230 is potentially more than a little overbroad and has allowed for things online that would not stand in the real world.

    It's difficult for them to fix it well and not cause great harm, but generally they work like a herd of elephants so plenty of stuff will get squished on the way by.

  • On the post: Kickass Torrents Creator Can't Get Criminal Case Tossed Out

    MyNameHere ( profile ), 08 Aug, 2017 @ 01:48pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "Your refusal to address anything said in the article, the actual arguments, any verifiable facts or the responses to you have yet again been noted."

    The actual arguments are the same old same old, excuses as to why we shouldn't look at the overall site and realize that it's nothing but a pirate site operated for a profit by a guy who knew exactly what it was.

    Mike spends a lot of time hand wringing over the concept that torrents aren't infringing. This is true. However, they are the first step in an act of infringement, you need the torrent file or magnet link to be able to download the rest. That is the "aiding and abetting" part of the deal.

    See, Kickass wasn't a random search engine that displayed automated results. It was a site packed with individually created pages, with information about each of the movies, tv shows, and record albums, and had featured links coded by the site operators to the best of the links. It wasn't a blank search engine, it was a guide to pirating.

    Without pirated materials (which made up almost all of the sites listing and pages), the site would have been barren, and would have not been very popular - and not at all profitable!

    The court ruled clearly - it's each to see the what the site was doing and how it was operating, and any attempt to say it wasn't a pirate site would be dishonest.

    "I do remember local suppliers being shut down, I do remember suppliers being prosecuted or otherwise blocked in their home countries where appropriate. I don't recall them being prosecuted according to another country's laws or anyone being held liable for "secondary" infringement."

    You need to think a little harder. If a guy in the UK sells a pirated CD or VHS tape that was made in France, he gets prosecuted in the UK under UK laws, even if the item was made somewhere else. In extreme cases, it wouldn't be out of the question for the French to also have a go if the guy in the UK was paying someone in France to create it specifically for him (conspiracy).

    Torrent sites are a perfect criminal conspiracy in that manner. Each of the parties involved does a little part of the job to further the criminal action. Those who create the torrent files and originally seed it, the sites that help make those torrent files available, and those who download the content and re-seed it or peer it are each parts of a conspiracy to achieve a single goal, pirated materials.

    Just like physical materials, the legal system generally stays away from prosecuting those who purchase or receive the content only as that is whack a mole at it's finest. Instead, they go at the key actors in the conspiracy, which are those who create the torrents (rippers and eoncoders) and the pirate torrent sites which list them and aid and abet the distribution.

    Torrents exist in their current form as an attempt to dodge responsibility or make it hard to prosecute by splitting up the process into individual slices that have a certain amount of plausible deniability. It's the same manner (almost to the letter) that drug street gangs use these days to sell drugs. You ask one guy, you pay a second guy, and you received the product from a third guy who got it from a fourth guy... it makes it a lot harder to prove an individual criminal transaction. If you stand back, it's not hard to see that drugs are being sold.

    So yeah, points addressed. Now can you manage it without personal attacks?

Next >>