OA’s Techdirt Profile


About OA

OA’s Comments comment rss

  • Aug 15th, 2019 @ 12:20pm


    Ahhh, yes. Dystopic scenario #8610027. Sometimes known as a 'Judge Dredd' scenario. So many possible dystopias, so difficult to choose!

  • May 23rd, 2019 @ 12:45pm

    Re: Re:

    My guess, it's a combination of two things:

    • ICE took the initiative and was given the go-ahead from those involved.
    • And, more importantly, they have the needed institutional extralegal attitude that allows them to do this with least internal, cultural and structural friction.

    The configuration of the lawlessness derived from (and tolerated because of) their immigration activity must be compatible with copyright mafia activity.

    Put another way. Immigration is the "hot hand" and the copyright cartel is riding that hot hand.

  • May 23rd, 2019 @ 9:46am

    (untitled comment)

    The front gate resisted arrest.

  • May 13th, 2019 @ 8:45am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    The government cannot legally create conditions that makes their own illegal actions undiscoverable. That is the very essence of whistleblowing. Airtight criminality is not a thing that is allowed in a society.

  • Apr 29th, 2019 @ 1:00pm

    Re: 'Sir, the protesters aren't violent.' 'Not YET anyway...'


    Though, I would note that police would NOT have to sue successfully. It is problematic enough just to be able to discourage protests by way of legal harassment.

    Furthermore, most protests that cops are tasked with "chaperoning" have nothing to do with the cops themselves. BLM protests are directly about the police. There is a sort of conflict of interest. Anonymously suing a protest leader adds yet another layer of bad on top.

  • Apr 29th, 2019 @ 9:02am

    Too many problems

    • Cops are nearly invulnerable to any consequences of actions they themselves take. Should a protest leader be responsible for actions another takes?

    • Being able to sue a protest leader would make infiltrating and sabotaging a protest that much more effective.

    • When should it be "legal" (or acceptable) to make useful protest activity illegal?

    • Too often justice is not blind at all.

    • There are politicians (including the POTUS) who should be FAR more vulnerable to liability through "incitement" than this protest leader should ever be.

    What we are seeing may be a further unbalancing on the judgments of legality. Increasingly, objectivity illegal and immoral acts are treated as both legal and acceptable. Meanwhile, the (often direct) reactions and responses to those acts are treated with escalating hostility. The consequences of this thinking go beyond the simple question of 'legal or illegal?'.

  • Apr 22nd, 2019 @ 9:01am

    Try, try again

    In past situations, I've had different suspicions about the motivations for seemingly frivolous litigation. Courts often act as a single point of failure. Bombard courts with similar suits and find a weak spot, a way to tailor suits to get past the rejections or even adjust the court's POV or posture on a subject matter. Like a body of water slowly eroding a natural dam, I imagine it has happened in other situations.

  • Apr 22nd, 2019 @ 8:43am

    Re: Re: Nominative antonym

    Members spend a ridiculous amount of time begging for money.

  • Apr 5th, 2019 @ 11:43am

    Fraud based economy

    On Monday, Mr. Masnick wrote an article about Getty: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20190329/15352641901/getty-images-sued-yet-again-trying-to-license -public-domain-images.shtml. Getty was selling public domain images for big bucks. Maybe that $600 billion is in fraud dollars.

  • Apr 5th, 2019 @ 11:28am

    Just $6,790 Of $208 Million

    That's ok FCC. I'll collect it for you.

  • Mar 27th, 2019 @ 10:02am

    Ancient gesture

    Wait, the middle finger is an "ancient gesture of insult"?

  • Mar 18th, 2019 @ 1:21pm

    Re: Re: Re: Another win for leftist censorship

    Your argument against name calling and dogma is the basis of pretty much every organized religion.

    "The basis of pretty much every organized religion" involve interpersonal relationships, group social dynamics and supposedly shared and unifying beliefs. As such "organized religion" is very similar to most other organization. Ideals are expressed in how they are different or strive to be different from most.

    Making mock of viewpoints, especially status quo viewpoints, is also effective - look at anyone who doesn't agree on "settled science" and how they're mocked and derided.

    Mocking is a tool. It is routinely misused. Its primary usefulness is getting the subjects of mockery to re-THINK their POV. A common misuse is to pressure dismissal of a POV without due consideration, which promotes 'us vs them' attitudes and group-think. It is critical that we are able to discern the differences and react properly. Especially in this day of mis-education and misinformation.

    Anyway, these days, it's a tool that rarely works positively. We should all use it FAR less often then we currently do.

  • Feb 28th, 2019 @ 12:00pm

    (untitled comment)

    Remember this the next time the MPAA goes around talking about how its mission is to "protect creators."

    They use "creators" as props in a way similar to how war hawks pretend to care about "the troops".

  • Feb 28th, 2019 @ 11:06am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    There is no accountability for fake or malicious reviews.

    "Malicious reviews" implies a judgment or an assessment. This commentary reads like a made up presumption that is then generalized. Is "accountability" only for reviewers and the platform? What about accountability of the business? Is accountability only of the legal type?...

    Section 230 immunizes the platform, who says it cannot determine the truth or falsity of reviews. If it can't, neither can anyone else.

    Nice fake logic. Subtle.

    1. Pissed Customer provides a platform that allows people to learn from other people's experiences with a business.
    2. If a user behaves badly Section 230 prevents an opportunistic business from attacking Pissed Customer because the site, otherwise, hosts an effective and badly needed counter to poor business practices (for instance).
    3. Without Section 230, a business could, for example, anonymously post a defamatory comment and then bring down the platform for unknowingly hosting it.

    False-advertising and defamation laws are safeguards which make speech much more credible.

    Nice psuedo-reasoning!
    The dominate attribute for speech is being FREE. Being "credible" is a judgment. An irrelevant judgment. A freedom does not require pre-approval. "False-advertising" in not applicable to this situation. "Defamation" is an accusation not self-evident.

    Now we have decisions that leave up defamatory content on third-party sites that can't be taken down even with a court order.

    On a roll!
    Being "defamatory" is a legal issue that a court decides on. This whole comment keeps using "defamatory" as a self-evident starting point. According to the article content can't be taken down with a fake court order.

    ...there is no punishment for lying,

    Is "punishment" (whatever that means) the default response? Who claims a statement is a lie? How much lying matters? Can the business be the liar who is "punished"? Is an inaccurate statement a lie?... A vague 'bogeyman' is not good enough, here. Be more specific or this statement is just a lie.

    ...and a lot of known motivations for lying (competitor, disgruntled employee/customer, etc.).

    And? I, too, can imagine all sorts of scenarios. Ooooh! What about aliens!...

    Someone who ignores this or claims to put stock in online reviews is essentially just declaring themselves gullible.

    Textbook FUD (fear - uncertainty - doubt). A biased stranger's imagination should override all the good and utility in online reviews... and free speech.

    [Note the similar logic used in "law and order" zealotry]

  • Feb 20th, 2019 @ 7:49am


    This comment could suggest that the government is a person that can have rights. AND this "person" is somehow separate and distinct from the citizenry and society as a whole. This idea is incompatibility with both the concept of a government and the activity and responsibility of governing.

    1. This logic is not usable in this scenario.
    2. Government cannot exist AS a 'Bubble'.

  • Feb 6th, 2019 @ 7:56am

    Re: Re: 10 cents per page?

    $3 million can't be right. A government agency costing less than ten million a year?

    $3m is less than pocket change - the government spends more on bleach for cleaning supplies.

    This seems like unuseable, unnecessary and prejudicial commentary.

    A good argument could be made to make it a free service with costs that low.

    ??? It should be free. It is a service that provides access to public records by a government to a public that it serves and that funds it.

  • Jan 23rd, 2019 @ 12:01pm

    Re: Re: Re: 'Our country/religion is SO pathetic, even words hur

    This is in response to this whole comment branch:

    Words have power. Can be significant, but how? why?

    The power words have is actually the power of communities (and individuals). Words can trigger, direct and focus this power usually by the communication of ideas.

    Bamboo Harvester is correct, but this does not truly invalidate OP's (That One Guy) comment. A common reason for suppressing broad categories of speech is to keep ideas from triggering communal power and harming power structures.

    ...people decrying such 'crimes' are under the impression that their beliefs are so laughably weak that they can't stand even mild criticism and/or questioning.

    'Beliefs' is the wrong focus. It is the power structures built around beliefs that is the issue. Even sincere, reasonable beliefs can be connected to people/organizations who are corrupted somehow, and are then fearful of the potential comeuppance.

    BTW, in a society, it is good to have power broadly seeded amongst its membership; this helps prevent any corruption by any subgroup from getting out of hand (we can all be tempted, but by different things, hopefully). [You also need some "higher faith" to prevent a coalescing around shared self-destructive attitudes.]


    Suppressing speech can be a Bubble Sustaining Mechanism.

  • Jan 23rd, 2019 @ 10:40am

    Re: Okay, now I read this re-write, looks solid as PART of the c

    If ignore that, then you're simply ignoring that the basic pattern matches, which narrows it down to highly likely.

    So you backed up their arbitrary "science" with your own guesswork.

    Also, vehicle and large cash spend at same time.

    Circumstantial can certainly be accurate.

    A bunch of separate circumstantial evidence can come together and be collectively compelling. But, if that was the case here than why did they need the made up science?

    The pattern I match up here is that Techdirt always finds some criminal to defend.

    The pattern I find is that so called "law and order" advocates define criminality in arbitrary, self-serving, overly zealous, and incompetent ways. As a result, they decide that they are justified in using any thoughtless mechanism to fight said "criminality". From what I can tell, THAT is what Techdirt objects to.

  • Jan 13th, 2019 @ 12:15pm

    (untitled comment)

    I'm funnier. /s

  • Nov 6th, 2018 @ 5:28pm

    Re: MSNBC livestream


    Video unavailable
    "MSNBC LIVE | THE RACHEL MAD..." is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Tonda TMoseley.

More comments from OA >>