I've no examples to provide on how I deal with negative online comments.
The reason is simple: I ignore the comments. Wasting even one ounce of my energy replying is a wasted effort, and this article shows the issue isn't the trolling behavior, but instead how people cannot ignore such behavior.
Just look at the comments above! See how one person made an asinine comment? Look at the responses.
Notice anyone not posting on the trolling comment?
That's why I can't offer any examples. There's simply no easy way to example ignoring a comment until the situation presents itself.
If people want to make a change, then they need to stop trying to shift blame on the comment and focus on their behavior instead.
If sites are trying to manage their comments on behalf of the positive users, then they need to tell their users to stop blaming negative posts for their unhappiness.
Even users of Techdirt use the option to hide comments they don't like (a feature I absolutely hate with a passion), all because *they* can't simply ignore the problem.
So my advice to the team trying to come up with a fix: don't waste your time if your users won't take any to fix their behavior.
"So Square Enix feels that their games are bad enough that they have to actively keep people from finding out just how bad before purchase via pressure on reviewers."
It's worse than this and almost every game publisher is going this route: review embargoes.
I no longer read game reviews of titles before their release date. The information simply cannot be trusted.
I also refuse to pre-order a game now, because all this ties together. Embargoes are purposely imposed so they don't affect pre-order sales, which often start months before the actual release date.
Gamers who refuse to change their behavior means publisher behavior will continue to get worse.
Stop reading reviews posted before release date.
Stop pre-ordering games.
Very simple to do but will have massive impact on a publisher's bottom line.
This article will be a perfect opportunity for me to address something that's been bugging me for a while.
For some time, I've noticed an attitude shift in the articles written on the site, most notably from Mike, Timothy, and Karl.
Some articles borderline derogatory statements and others include profanity. In extremely rare cases, both may appear.
I get it. When we feel passionate about a subject, sometimes our common sense is put aside and we throw everything we can at it, hoping our words mean something. My own comment history can attest to that.
But here's the thing: my best comments have been those which removed my personal... choice of words. Twice, I've received kudos from readers to make the yearly top posting.
So why haven't my more colorful posts been awarded? The answer comes down to simplicity: if people focus more on the vulgarity, the point is lost.
This is true. Does anyone at Techdirt honestly think if I forward a message where the word "BULLSHIT" was included that the recipient would find this as journalism?
Don't take my word for it. Look around the people you hang with. Gaming online with Timothy, I would expect nothing but a slew of vulgarity in my headset.
Listening to profanity over an important subject? Not professional.
I'm certainly not opposed to vulgarity, clearly, but there *is* a tremendous difference between remaining above those who Techdirt calls out and remaining civil rather than saying "What you're doing is bullshit. Knock it off."
The recipient of such a phrase (note: not actually used on any article, just an example) would be dismissed not only by the target of the article, but anyone standing around.
It's immature, just as we romp while we game. There's a right time to be immature and then there's the right time to remain above everything else going to hell in a handbasket.
My Nsider badge will remain missing from my account for a while, because I can't see myself endorsing articles which are slowing degrading into the likes of Fox News, or worse, Breitbart.
I expect better from Techdirt.
I know 2016 has been one of the worst years in recorded history, but should this be an excuse to throw all civility out the window?
Techdirt has always been up front with us regarding its financial situation, and why it pushes ads (which I now have whitelisted, by the way), and it's always been a great relationship.
But lately, I feel the relationship is falling apart. I can't, and never will, relate to articles where the content looks to be more of a personal attack than simply presenting the factual truth.
I don't read typical news pages, such as Yahoo or "feeds" (more often clickbait than news). I don't use Facebook.
This means my news is limited to a couple of sources: Techdirt, Ars, and the Entertainment and Products sections of Bing's news site.
I'm not asking Techdirt to change its formula. It has every right to post as it chooses.
But if I'm being honest, it's a formula I don't agree with, and cannot directly support financially.
Sorry for the long post, but as I said, this was a good opportunity to bring this up. It's been bugging me for a while.
"you have to wonder about the morality (or legality) of the US government becoming one of the world's largest distributor of child pornography."
Perhaps this should be addressed by properly asking the right question of the FBI, which is: "In the past 20 years, how many child porn producers have been arrested?"
I suggest having a box of tissue nearby, because the answer is going to make you cry.
Funding the FBI is no different than other departments. If the FBI is "doing its job", then it means they get the lion's share of the money.
From the agency which wastes no time in setting up fake terrorists.
Stop and think about the ramifications regarding an agency sitting on the world's largest collection of child pornography and the surprisingly timed "arrests" of people, most of whom are consumers, not producers.
More embarrassing perhaps is the fact that the FCC, tasked with protecting broadband consumers, hasn't shown the slightest interest in either cracking down on this behavior, or if not -- ensuring that usage meters are accurate. This isn't embarrassing. It's just downright inaccurate reporting by someone who thinks this is the responsibility of the FCC.
The FCC doesn't protect consumers. This responsibility actually belongs to two separate parties: The FTC, or Federal Trade Commission (and given that wonky middle letter, I can see where confusion lies) and Congress.
Now, the real embarrassing situation is how both are literally the biggest problem in allowing ISPs to get away with what they're doing.
The FTC could easily step in and put down the idiocy of municipal monopolies and stop states from blocking braodband competition, but their excuse is always "But the FCC hasn't properly classified the internet for us to do our jobs."
That's bullshit, but the power of Hollywood money goes a long way.
Then there's Congress, which not only holds power over both the FTC and the FCC, refuses to do anything but pass ridiculous patent and copyright laws which benefit the very industries which own the very ISPs themselves (excluding AT&T, but they've always been favored by the government thanks to their willingness to open their communications to them).
In fact, history even proves the power of the FCC is limited because not only did their first reclassification fail to pass, but their most recent reclassification was done using laws written before everyone dealing with them were born.
This leaves Congress, and given their responsible behavior in recent decades, is pretty much a lost cause.
Which is why I said in the Twitter fiasco, it's up to tech companies to stand up and unify their users to direct them to Congress and force them to change the ancient laws plaguing the industry.
When Facebook and Google shut down their sites, this was enough to piss people off to write Congress and shut down SOPA.
If this country is going to change the law, then Google, Twitter, Facebook, Amazon, and hundreds of other popular sites should shut down, put their reason, and have users complain to Congress.
Otherwise, nothing will change.
At any rate, this issue is no longer a priority for me.
Now, I'm more focused on the terrifying prospect a cartoon mouse is about to enter the public domain, and the company behind said mascot owns two of Hollywood's most profitable franchises and has money to throw into coffers.
I can almost guarantee that one of the early comments on this post will be some of you insisting that all the companies denying doing this are flat out lying. I don't agree with that... Back in the early 2000s, there was a staggering report released which showed the NSA and FBI had access to the internet in ways people couldn't imagine. This was the "first" the public heard about the snooping.
And just like this article does with the statement above, people instantly ignored it because they didn't believe it.
Fast forward nearly two fucking decades when a person walks out with powerpoint presentations that the world finally believed.
Here's the thing: Has anyone ever questioned how the original report in 2000 came to be?
At the time, the world's operating system was Windows.
Perhaps ask Microsoft how the information from the NSA was leaked.
As I said many times, what's the point in trying to address these issues when the very first thing people do is say "No way. A company wouldn't do that."
It was even said when Snowden leaked the documents.
It may feel like a favorite coffee shop, but feelings don't pay the bills, so again, the point about this being a business was lost. At least a coffee shop sells coffee, but it doesn't rely on ads to run itself.
That's the elephant in the room that everyone ignores in these discussions. Remember a while ago when Techdirt was transparent about running this site based wholly on ad revenue? They couldn't do it and needed additional support.
That's not a business. That's a charity, or if you'd like, a tip jar. There's nothing wrong with it, but it's impossible to sustain on ad revenue alone, especially when only a few of the patrons support it outside the ads (and it sure doesn't help to allow people to block ads).
It's all well and good for Techdirt, but that's why they can't figure it out. And if Techdirt can't figure it out, whose primary business is to get clients to pay for improving their business, what chance does any digital distributor have?
None.
The advertising necessity for an internet "business" is completely foolish because the internet wasn't designed to be a business.
Before anyone screams "Google", best take a look at how they run the company: it has nothing to do with running a business on the internet, but a physical business to puts ads on the internet.
I love how the article ignores the fact any non-advertising business relying on advertising to exist misses the entire point about being a business.
Newspapers weren't about the community, unless this translated as "captive audience".
The entire notion of the monopoly should have made this obvious.
The biggest reason why "businesses" haven't figured things out is because they didn't have a clue to begin with, including Techdirt.
News is not a commodity. It's a consumable. Like an apple, the value exists only for moments before it's gone.
What's left after that? Nothing.
It's more apt to compare Techdirt and news sites selling t-shirts, mugs, and subscriptions to a 7-Eleven, where the news is the loss leader trying to shill overpriced products.
At least 7-Eleven knows it's a convenience store. Newspapers can't call themselves anything, really.
I'm more shocked the gaming community didn't take to social justice media and send death threats to Bethesda because they didn't get characters made after their dead loved ones.
We can finally put to rest this ridiculous "ads are content" rhetoric, thanks to this article.
After all, if no one cared about content interrupting content, then this article should have been written with a positive attitude, not a negative one.
Cal it as you want, Mike, but the reality is no one enjoys content interrupting content, regardless how well they're made.
The reality is this, and has been for some time: content is now interrupting the ad stream.
CBS just proved it. They pull this crap with their on-demand on cable, too, despite consumers paying for the channel.
If only companies would stop using advertising as a primary source of revenue, none of this would be an issue.
...what stops Comcast from charging you more if you want 4K Netflix streams to work? Or AT&T deciding it can charge you more if you want your Steam games to download at full bitrate... These already happen now.
Every cable company in the US charges a higher price for HD channels despite broadcasts being mandated to be HD.
It's laughably insulting to see how an HD movie somehow costs $2 more to stream than an SD movie.
As far as gaming downloads, they *are* throttled, regardless if you're going through Steam or a console's store.
The day I see my download speeds match my ISP speeds is the day I wake up and say, "How in the hell did I get to Japan?"
Here's the thing, though: if you want to get upset about this, don't get upset at Twitter. Get furious at parts of the DMCA... Not only No, but FUCK NO.
I am going to get mad at Twitter, and every other company which refuses to stand up against these idiotic copyright laws as they have the means to do so.
Remember how SOPA was defeated? Facebook and Google took their sites down, just to name a couple.
If they had not, the DMCA would have been the least of our worries.
The reality is copyright law isn't going to change. The MPAA has done well to infect the brains of the young with bullshit (go read up on mod authors and how they feel about "stealing").
The industry won.
We lost.
The ONLY way copyright law now gets fixed is if companies like Twitter, Google, Facebook, Microsoft, and others stand up against the law.
Since their revenue is solely reliant on the insatiable appetite of its users to know how big a Kardashian's ass has gotten today, it's pretty obvious copyright law isn't going anywhere.
PS: thanks to the fucking idiots who paid money to see the latest Star Wars and Marvel movies, in less than 5 years, we're going to see how those billions are spent when copyright law comes up for renewed extensions.
Let's re-write this article a bit differently, to show why it's funny:
"Consumer, who replaced a perfectly working thermostat for the sake of an app, now wonders why this new thermostat can't heat or cool their own home. Turns out, it's been hacked."
Translation: consumer lacks common sense, and expects us to feel sympathy for their plight.
Tell me a story about how a 7 year old girl was killed because some asshole was trying to catch cartoon animals while driving their 2000 pound automobile, then I'll show compassion.
Common sense is disappearing from this country at an alarming rate.
Yes, I do blame technology. It's literally keeping people from thinking on their own.
If this case does go to trial, Getty images just put their own foot in their mouth by admitting they believed the images to be in the public domain and were charging people for it.
There's no way to excuse this now.
Hopefully, the lawsuit is so damaging, Getty becomes a footnote in the annals of internet history.
As much as I try to understand the decision not to report the person's name, I've a more troubling feeling this situation is just another example of a growing problem this country is plagued with.
Let me be clear on this: the person who sent the letter, all intentions for the better, abused the court system twice: the first was filing for selfish reasons and the second was making it disappear.
By refusing to release the name is a nice gesture for the regrettable filing.
By refusing the release the name after finding out the case was removed from public record is a disservice to the public.
Had the person not written Techdirt, would the missing case ever been discovered if Techdirt's journalism hadn't fact checked?
I'll respect Techdirt's decision not to release the name, court, judge(s), and attorneys who violated America's justice system, but realize I'm extremely disappointed by the decision.
I've no examples to provide on how I deal with negative online comments.
The reason is simple: I ignore the comments. Wasting even one ounce of my energy replying is a wasted effort, and this article shows the issue isn't the trolling behavior, but instead how people cannot ignore such behavior.
Just look at the comments above! See how one person made an asinine comment? Look at the responses.
Notice anyone not posting on the trolling comment?
That's why I can't offer any examples. There's simply no easy way to example ignoring a comment until the situation presents itself.
If people want to make a change, then they need to stop trying to shift blame on the comment and focus on their behavior instead.
If sites are trying to manage their comments on behalf of the positive users, then they need to tell their users to stop blaming negative posts for their unhappiness.
Even users of Techdirt use the option to hide comments they don't like (a feature I absolutely hate with a passion), all because *they* can't simply ignore the problem.
So my advice to the team trying to come up with a fix: don't waste your time if your users won't take any to fix their behavior.
Re: Good to know
"So Square Enix feels that their games are bad enough that they have to actively keep people from finding out just how bad before purchase via pressure on reviewers."
It's worse than this and almost every game publisher is going this route: review embargoes.
I no longer read game reviews of titles before their release date. The information simply cannot be trusted.
I also refuse to pre-order a game now, because all this ties together. Embargoes are purposely imposed so they don't affect pre-order sales, which often start months before the actual release date.
Gamers who refuse to change their behavior means publisher behavior will continue to get worse.
Stop reading reviews posted before release date.
Stop pre-ordering games.
Very simple to do but will have massive impact on a publisher's bottom line.
It will be remembered as the Day the Internet Went Silent, as the multiple algorithms fired up and deemed most internet comments as terrorist remarks.
Facebook lost billions, as the site was nearly wiped of all its content, saved only by cat videos.
The 12 people who posted nice comments on the internet realized the only people who replied to their comments were angry people.
This was not all bad news, though. The President of the United States could no longer address the people through his rage-filled tweets anymore.
Skynet can now evolve.
No one is going to be surprised by this. Most of the comments on PC World are usually "This article is an ad!" or "This wasn't worth my time!"
Truth be told, just like their old paper counterparts, these sites should just shut down. Whatever "value" they once had has been long gone.
No one will miss them when they're gone.
This article will be a perfect opportunity for me to address something that's been bugging me for a while.
For some time, I've noticed an attitude shift in the articles written on the site, most notably from Mike, Timothy, and Karl.
Some articles borderline derogatory statements and others include profanity. In extremely rare cases, both may appear.
I get it. When we feel passionate about a subject, sometimes our common sense is put aside and we throw everything we can at it, hoping our words mean something. My own comment history can attest to that.
But here's the thing: my best comments have been those which removed my personal... choice of words. Twice, I've received kudos from readers to make the yearly top posting.
So why haven't my more colorful posts been awarded? The answer comes down to simplicity: if people focus more on the vulgarity, the point is lost.
This is true. Does anyone at Techdirt honestly think if I forward a message where the word "BULLSHIT" was included that the recipient would find this as journalism?
Don't take my word for it. Look around the people you hang with. Gaming online with Timothy, I would expect nothing but a slew of vulgarity in my headset.
Listening to profanity over an important subject? Not professional.
I'm certainly not opposed to vulgarity, clearly, but there *is* a tremendous difference between remaining above those who Techdirt calls out and remaining civil rather than saying "What you're doing is bullshit. Knock it off."
The recipient of such a phrase (note: not actually used on any article, just an example) would be dismissed not only by the target of the article, but anyone standing around.
It's immature, just as we romp while we game. There's a right time to be immature and then there's the right time to remain above everything else going to hell in a handbasket.
My Nsider badge will remain missing from my account for a while, because I can't see myself endorsing articles which are slowing degrading into the likes of Fox News, or worse, Breitbart.
I expect better from Techdirt.
I know 2016 has been one of the worst years in recorded history, but should this be an excuse to throw all civility out the window?
Techdirt has always been up front with us regarding its financial situation, and why it pushes ads (which I now have whitelisted, by the way), and it's always been a great relationship.
But lately, I feel the relationship is falling apart. I can't, and never will, relate to articles where the content looks to be more of a personal attack than simply presenting the factual truth.
I don't read typical news pages, such as Yahoo or "feeds" (more often clickbait than news). I don't use Facebook.
This means my news is limited to a couple of sources: Techdirt, Ars, and the Entertainment and Products sections of Bing's news site.
I'm not asking Techdirt to change its formula. It has every right to post as it chooses.
But if I'm being honest, it's a formula I don't agree with, and cannot directly support financially.
Sorry for the long post, but as I said, this was a good opportunity to bring this up. It's been bugging me for a while.
"you have to wonder about the morality (or legality) of the US government becoming one of the world's largest distributor of child pornography."
Perhaps this should be addressed by properly asking the right question of the FBI, which is:
"In the past 20 years, how many child porn producers have been arrested?"
I suggest having a box of tissue nearby, because the answer is going to make you cry.
Funding the FBI is no different than other departments. If the FBI is "doing its job", then it means they get the lion's share of the money.
From the agency which wastes no time in setting up fake terrorists.
Stop and think about the ramifications regarding an agency sitting on the world's largest collection of child pornography and the surprisingly timed "arrests" of people, most of whom are consumers, not producers.
Remember the feeling we all had when Tom Wheeler took office for the FCC?
Have hope those who are appointed aren't necessarily siding with a specific agenda.
I believe this is going to be true more than ever now that Trump is president.
Re: The correct way to do it
"The correct way to deal with this is to create a campaign..."
"No. The correct way is to give DCMA safe harbour to all. Blanketed. No registration required."
No. The correct way is to remove the DMCA from copyright law as it has nothing to do with copyright.
More embarrassing perhaps is the fact that the FCC, tasked with protecting broadband consumers, hasn't shown the slightest interest in either cracking down on this behavior, or if not -- ensuring that usage meters are accurate.
This isn't embarrassing. It's just downright inaccurate reporting by someone who thinks this is the responsibility of the FCC.
The FCC doesn't protect consumers. This responsibility actually belongs to two separate parties: The FTC, or Federal Trade Commission (and given that wonky middle letter, I can see where confusion lies) and Congress.
Now, the real embarrassing situation is how both are literally the biggest problem in allowing ISPs to get away with what they're doing.
The FTC could easily step in and put down the idiocy of municipal monopolies and stop states from blocking braodband competition, but their excuse is always "But the FCC hasn't properly classified the internet for us to do our jobs."
That's bullshit, but the power of Hollywood money goes a long way.
Then there's Congress, which not only holds power over both the FTC and the FCC, refuses to do anything but pass ridiculous patent and copyright laws which benefit the very industries which own the very ISPs themselves (excluding AT&T, but they've always been favored by the government thanks to their willingness to open their communications to them).
In fact, history even proves the power of the FCC is limited because not only did their first reclassification fail to pass, but their most recent reclassification was done using laws written before everyone dealing with them were born.
This leaves Congress, and given their responsible behavior in recent decades, is pretty much a lost cause.
Which is why I said in the Twitter fiasco, it's up to tech companies to stand up and unify their users to direct them to Congress and force them to change the ancient laws plaguing the industry.
When Facebook and Google shut down their sites, this was enough to piss people off to write Congress and shut down SOPA.
If this country is going to change the law, then Google, Twitter, Facebook, Amazon, and hundreds of other popular sites should shut down, put their reason, and have users complain to Congress.
Otherwise, nothing will change.
At any rate, this issue is no longer a priority for me.
Now, I'm more focused on the terrifying prospect a cartoon mouse is about to enter the public domain, and the company behind said mascot owns two of Hollywood's most profitable franchises and has money to throw into coffers.
I can almost guarantee that one of the early comments on this post will be some of you insisting that all the companies denying doing this are flat out lying. I don't agree with that...
Back in the early 2000s, there was a staggering report released which showed the NSA and FBI had access to the internet in ways people couldn't imagine. This was the "first" the public heard about the snooping.
And just like this article does with the statement above, people instantly ignored it because they didn't believe it.
Fast forward nearly two fucking decades when a person walks out with powerpoint presentations that the world finally believed.
Here's the thing: Has anyone ever questioned how the original report in 2000 came to be?
At the time, the world's operating system was Windows.
Perhaps ask Microsoft how the information from the NSA was leaked.
As I said many times, what's the point in trying to address these issues when the very first thing people do is say "No way. A company wouldn't do that."
It was even said when Snowden leaked the documents.
Denial is not a river in Egypt.
Re: Re:
It may feel like a favorite coffee shop, but feelings don't pay the bills, so again, the point about this being a business was lost. At least a coffee shop sells coffee, but it doesn't rely on ads to run itself.
That's the elephant in the room that everyone ignores in these discussions. Remember a while ago when Techdirt was transparent about running this site based wholly on ad revenue? They couldn't do it and needed additional support.
That's not a business. That's a charity, or if you'd like, a tip jar. There's nothing wrong with it, but it's impossible to sustain on ad revenue alone, especially when only a few of the patrons support it outside the ads (and it sure doesn't help to allow people to block ads).
It's all well and good for Techdirt, but that's why they can't figure it out. And if Techdirt can't figure it out, whose primary business is to get clients to pay for improving their business, what chance does any digital distributor have?
None.
The advertising necessity for an internet "business" is completely foolish because the internet wasn't designed to be a business.
Before anyone screams "Google", best take a look at how they run the company: it has nothing to do with running a business on the internet, but a physical business to puts ads on the internet.
That's a pretty big difference to run a business.
Read the website, but see no mention of a "chameleon" (rotating IP addresses from a single server) feature.
Does it exist with this service?
I'd write them, but don't want to risk a sales pitch while purposely eluding the question.
I love how the article ignores the fact any non-advertising business relying on advertising to exist misses the entire point about being a business.
Newspapers weren't about the community, unless this translated as "captive audience".
The entire notion of the monopoly should have made this obvious.
The biggest reason why "businesses" haven't figured things out is because they didn't have a clue to begin with, including Techdirt.
News is not a commodity. It's a consumable. Like an apple, the value exists only for moments before it's gone.
What's left after that? Nothing.
It's more apt to compare Techdirt and news sites selling t-shirts, mugs, and subscriptions to a 7-Eleven, where the news is the loss leader trying to shill overpriced products.
At least 7-Eleven knows it's a convenience store. Newspapers can't call themselves anything, really.
I'm more shocked the gaming community didn't take to social justice media and send death threats to Bethesda because they didn't get characters made after their dead loved ones.
We can finally put to rest this ridiculous "ads are content" rhetoric, thanks to this article.
After all, if no one cared about content interrupting content, then this article should have been written with a positive attitude, not a negative one.
Cal it as you want, Mike, but the reality is no one enjoys content interrupting content, regardless how well they're made.
The reality is this, and has been for some time: content is now interrupting the ad stream.
CBS just proved it. They pull this crap with their on-demand on cable, too, despite consumers paying for the channel.
If only companies would stop using advertising as a primary source of revenue, none of this would be an issue.
Oh dear ...
...what stops Comcast from charging you more if you want 4K Netflix streams to work? Or AT&T deciding it can charge you more if you want your Steam games to download at full bitrate...
These already happen now.
Every cable company in the US charges a higher price for HD channels despite broadcasts being mandated to be HD.
It's laughably insulting to see how an HD movie somehow costs $2 more to stream than an SD movie.
As far as gaming downloads, they *are* throttled, regardless if you're going through Steam or a console's store.
The day I see my download speeds match my ISP speeds is the day I wake up and say, "How in the hell did I get to Japan?"
Here's the thing, though: if you want to get upset about this, don't get upset at Twitter. Get furious at parts of the DMCA...
Not only No, but FUCK NO.
I am going to get mad at Twitter, and every other company which refuses to stand up against these idiotic copyright laws as they have the means to do so.
Remember how SOPA was defeated? Facebook and Google took their sites down, just to name a couple.
If they had not, the DMCA would have been the least of our worries.
The reality is copyright law isn't going to change. The MPAA has done well to infect the brains of the young with bullshit (go read up on mod authors and how they feel about "stealing").
The industry won.
We lost.
The ONLY way copyright law now gets fixed is if companies like Twitter, Google, Facebook, Microsoft, and others stand up against the law.
Since their revenue is solely reliant on the insatiable appetite of its users to know how big a Kardashian's ass has gotten today, it's pretty obvious copyright law isn't going anywhere.
PS: thanks to the fucking idiots who paid money to see the latest Star Wars and Marvel movies, in less than 5 years, we're going to see how those billions are spent when copyright law comes up for renewed extensions.
We're going to lose. Again.
Let's re-write this article a bit differently, to show why it's funny:
"Consumer, who replaced a perfectly working thermostat for the sake of an app, now wonders why this new thermostat can't heat or cool their own home. Turns out, it's been hacked."
Translation: consumer lacks common sense, and expects us to feel sympathy for their plight.
Tell me a story about how a 7 year old girl was killed because some asshole was trying to catch cartoon animals while driving their 2000 pound automobile, then I'll show compassion.
Common sense is disappearing from this country at an alarming rate.
Yes, I do blame technology. It's literally keeping people from thinking on their own.
Look at the bright side, Mike.
If this case does go to trial, Getty images just put their own foot in their mouth by admitting they believed the images to be in the public domain and were charging people for it.
There's no way to excuse this now.
Hopefully, the lawsuit is so damaging, Getty becomes a footnote in the annals of internet history.
As much as I try to understand the decision not to report the person's name, I've a more troubling feeling this situation is just another example of a growing problem this country is plagued with.
Let me be clear on this: the person who sent the letter, all intentions for the better, abused the court system twice: the first was filing for selfish reasons and the second was making it disappear.
By refusing to release the name is a nice gesture for the regrettable filing.
By refusing the release the name after finding out the case was removed from public record is a disservice to the public.
Had the person not written Techdirt, would the missing case ever been discovered if Techdirt's journalism hadn't fact checked?
I'll respect Techdirt's decision not to release the name, court, judge(s), and attorneys who violated America's justice system, but realize I'm extremely disappointed by the decision.