TruthHurts’s Techdirt Profile


About TruthHurts

TruthHurts’s Comments comment rss

  • Sep 28th, 2017 @ 2:26pm


    Knee-jerk to return the favor that Amazon has done for years?

    Amazon is lucky Google just doesn't pull the plug on everything Amazon. Amazon's hardware and service offerings would plummet.

  • Sep 28th, 2017 @ 2:24pm

    Re: Re: I'm with Google here

    The fault lies squarely upon Amazon.

    I really wish Google would turn off all their services on Amazon products.

    Sorry Alexa, you can't use Google search to find your answers anymore, and Bing just doesn't cut it.
    Perhaps you can resurrect AskJeeves or something similar.

  • Sep 27th, 2017 @ 2:45pm

    Re: Do unto others as they have done unto you...

    That link gives info on what Google Chromecast users have to do to get Amazon Prime content to display on Chromecast.

    Requires another device running Chrome browser and "cast to" Chrome App.

    So yeah, Amazon did it first, Google just decided to reciprocate after Amazon released their product.

    I'd love it if Google extended that prohibition to all Amazon hardware.

  • Sep 27th, 2017 @ 2:41pm

    Do unto others as they have done unto you...

    Ever notice that you can't get Amazon content on Google Chromecast?

    That was strictly Amazon playing hard ball demanding that Google give them preferential placement on Google's hardware, which obviously Google wasn't going to do.

    Perhaps Amazon will learn to play well with others after this.

  • Jun 28th, 2017 @ 12:10pm

    Google does NOT have a monopoly.

    Google doesn't control it's place in the online search and advertising industries.

    Let me re-state that as it's crucial to this case.

    Google does NOT have a monopoly, and they do not control their position in the global online search and advertising industries.

    What Google does have, are the hearts and minds of hundreds of millions, if not billions of users world wide.

    All of these users choosing to use Google's services pushed Google's search and advertising businesses to the top of the market, but that is NOT something that is under Google's control.

    What that means is that the EU is fining Google because of the actions of other people.

    Google cannot be accused of abusing a market position that is outside of their control.

    If the EU doesn't like Google being top dog in online search and advertising, all they have to do is build a better search engine and build a better advertising business and promote them to people globally and if they truly are better, the people will flock to them.

    Trying to blame Google for abusing a position that they themselves cannot control makes the EU court system a laughing stock to the rest of the world.

  • Jun 22nd, 2017 @ 10:54am

    Re: Re: Colorado Voters have always had that ability.

    That's a fallacy. It's an attempt to use the law to do a parent's job.

    It's a decision for the parents as to whether or not their child is responsible enough to have a phone.

    There's also the safety issue, parents may get "dumb phones" instead of smart phones so that their child can communicate with them if something happens.

    That law would prevent that communication and could cause direct harm to a child that might otherwise been able to reach out to their parent to get out of a dangerous situation.

    If I were a parent in Co, and something happened to my child because of that law, I'd sue the state for their next 10 year's budget.

  • Jun 22nd, 2017 @ 9:07am

    Colorado Voters have always had that ability.

    It's called parenting.

    If a parent cannot, or will not take charge of their child's development and emplace appropriate limits on device usage, passing a law isn't going to improve anything.

    All that passing this law will do is criminalize the actions or lack of actions on the part of parents who are indifferent to their childrens' wellbeing.

  • Jun 8th, 2017 @ 1:00pm

    Easy Fix...

    Until such time as the NSA delivers the numbers, and they've been validated by an international human rights organization, suspend 702, do not renew, in fact, kill off the entire Patriot Act as that in and of itself is unconstitutional.

  • May 17th, 2017 @ 2:45pm

    Send Ajit the pre-cursor for the lawsuit he'll be facing if he dismantles net-neutrality...

    Class action lawsuit filed against him personally for the damage reversing the rules will cause, fiscal as well as physical.

    When faced with over three hundred and twenty million litigants against his personal finances, he'll back down in about 0.6 seconds. For an android, that is nearly an eternity.

  • May 17th, 2017 @ 2:33pm

    Undercover Fed is what's needed.

    Have an Undercover fed drive around "suspiciously", until the "drug detection god" falls for the bait.

    Then, when he's about to make his "arrest", boom, feds swarm in, slam him into the ground, slap the cuffs on him and take him away for a one way trip to Gitmo for life.

    I figure if the "police officer" can't bother to follow the law, and makes false arrests as well as falsifying police reports, then he can just get sent somewhere to sit and rot for the rest of his life.

  • Apr 28th, 2017 @ 6:00pm


    Made my position clear, and made Pai's position clear depending on which way he votes.

    If he votes for repeal, then he is in collusion with a handful of greedily corrupt corporations.
    If he votes against repeal, then he is actually doing what the job he is in demands be done.

    It's time Ajit realizes that the FCC isn't his personal playground to do what he wishes with impunity.

  • Apr 28th, 2017 @ 5:45pm

    Time for a Class action lawsuit against Ajit Pai

    Since Ajit Pai is actively working against the department that he was placed in charge of, all protections that position might have granted him are null and void.

    That means it is time to strike back against this egotistical piece of filth that thinks he can just walk in and do whatever he wants.

    For all the damage that rolling back net neutrality will cause to every U.S. Citizen - hit him where it hurts. His wallet.

    Sue him for everything he has, or will have, past, present, future until the day he dies.
    That might cover 1/10th of 1 percent of the damage it will cause to the combined citizenry of this country.

    When he gets hit with a lawsuit with 325+ million plaintiffs, imagine the pucker-factor that will have.

    I imagine that there would be plenty of lawyers willing to step in gratis or even just for their share of the take to get him and his cronies to wake the fuck up.

  • Apr 21st, 2017 @ 8:31am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: bullshit

    The president has whatever power he thinks he can get away with in their "illegal" executive-orders.

    Most of these are not only illegal, but unconstitutional.

    I recall one executive order that was written and signed after Congress passed a law re-iterating that the government could not open mail without a court order.

    The executive order that was written and signed after the law was signed by the President said the equivelent of "That new law you wrote, restricting my peons from opening mail without a court order? Yeah, it only applies if I feel like letting it."

    The executive branch does not "get to interpret" the law, period!

    That is the sole right of the Judicial branch.

    The Legislative branch writes the laws.
    The Judicial branch interprets the laws.
    The Executive branch executes the people abiding by the laws in ways they don't like. Wait, did I say that out loud?

  • Apr 21st, 2017 @ 8:21am

    The U.S. Government needs to learn a child's lesson...

    I taught my children, before they even started kindergarten, that if they don't want someone to "tell on them" or "know they did something they shouldn't have", that they have one and only one option.

    Can you guess what that option is?

    Yup, nailed it in one. "Don't do what you don't want others to know you did." or to put it another way "Don't do something you know is WRONG."

    If my children, at age 5 can understand this, then why in the hell can't the idiots in the government understand this?

    Assange did nothing, abso-fucking-lutely nothing wrong in any way, shape or form.

    It's the fucking retards (aka fucktards) in the alphabet organizations and the mentally-challenged-unable-to-reach-fucktard-status currently running the country, that should have known to start with that what they were doing, and continue to do, was wrong, illegal, unconstitutional, against the Geneva convention, crimes against humanity.

  • Apr 12th, 2017 @ 12:54pm


    When the local, county and state officials overseeing those local cops are as corrupt as the cops themselves, damned right I want federal oversight.

    But I'd also want to be overseeing the federal overseers, sort of an uber-overseer so that I could stomp on the ones that try to take away from or completely overlook the bill of rights.

  • Apr 12th, 2017 @ 11:52am


    >The DOJ also just finished wrapping up an investigation of the Chicago PD, but statements made by Sessions and President Trump indicate the White House and DOJ are more interested in solving Chicago's crime problem, rather than its police problem.

    Aren't they one and the same?

  • Apr 5th, 2017 @ 2:49pm

    Re: Re: Well that's reassuring

    No, No, No.

    You do NOT want the destruction of those entities.
    You want the destruction of the strings tying the communications industries to the joints of the FCC/FTC chairman puppets currently being played by the @$$#@75 in charge of those industry giants.

    Once we see the puppets on stage fall to the ground like the spineless marionettes that they are, the audience might, just 'might' wake up and demand their money back from this worst play ever.

    Make America great again? Oust Trump and his phony cronies before they do any more damage.

  • Apr 5th, 2017 @ 2:45pm

    Re: Isn't the FCC supposed to crack down on false public statements? (advertising usually)

    Too many acronyms, insufficient caffeine... meant FTC for subject... ah well... one would think FCC would want truth in communications as well.

  • Apr 5th, 2017 @ 2:41pm

    Isn't the FCC supposed to crack down on false public statements? (advertising usually)

    "Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai and his counterpart at the Federal Trade Commission today argued that strict privacy rules for ISPs aren't necessary in part because the broadband market is more competitive than the search engine market."


    10+ search engines
    Choices for ISPs in most areas of the country, '1', at most '2'.

    Can we round the FTC and FCC leaders up and prosecute them for making false statements to the government? Not to mention, to the rest of the citizens of this nation?

  • Feb 15th, 2017 @ 12:54pm

    Veterans against Trump and his cronies...

    We do not appreciate the mockery you are making of the Constitution.

    Cease and desist before enough Veterans and active military have to do what they swore to do when they joined.

    Upholding the Constitution is the #1 priority of all branches of the military, against enemies foreign **AND DOMESTIC**.

    Following orders within the chain of command comes a far second after this.

    When I joined, this was the oath I swore.

    I, My Name, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed ...

    I may no longer be physically able to come kick your ass out of office, but you can't say that about the rest of the people still doing active military service.

    How many military personnel are currently deployed? When they come back, will they have to come and kick your ass out of the office that you are making a mockery of?

    How about you actually start following and defending the Constitution that *YOU* swore to uphold.

    Get rid of your cronies that you appointed to office, and put people in that actually care about the Constitution first, the human beings that make up our citizens and visitors second and last.

    Corporations, which aren't *PEOPLE* (when has a company been drafted, or been sent to prison), can fend for themselves.

    The constituents which voted you into office need your protection, not your abuse.

More comments from TruthHurts >>