Qwertygiy 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (31) comment rss

  • On the post: Ninth Circuit Tells Online Services: Section 230 Isn't For You

    Qwertygiy ( profile ), 15 Mar, 2019 @ 05:46pm

    Re: Re: I disagree.

    1) Anybody driving a car is required to have a license. Some cities will require a 'license' for short term rental landlords, others won't.
    Not necessarily. Some places have exemptions, such as places in Alaska that are too remote to have a DMV.
    2) I assume you know what a drivers license looks like, but what does a particular cities landlord license' look like?
    Do you know, on sight, what all 50 state drivers licenses look like, along with a DC license and non-REAL ID licenses where they exist? Neither do I. That's why they just take the license number, run a quick check, and be done with it.

  • On the post: Ninth Circuit Tells Online Services: Section 230 Isn't For You

    Qwertygiy ( profile ), 15 Mar, 2019 @ 04:54pm

    Re: Margarine melts at 110????, and butter at 98.6????, feel tha

    "Just because I own a car and pay taxes to maintain the roads does not mean that I am responsible for those bank robbers over there who use not only a car that might be the same make, model, and year as mine, but had the arrogance to use the roads I help to maintain via taxes to effect their getaway, make me liable for their actions." That's not a comparable situation at all. That would be more comparable to you, a landlord using AirBNB to sell a two-story one-bathroom house in Townsville, being held liable for a different landlord using AirBNB to sell a two-story one-bathroom house in Townsville illegally. The membership fees or percentages of sales used to maintain the website are far more optional and personal in nature than taxes used to maintain roads, and the outcome is still insane. What would be more comparable would be if you ran an auction for third parties to sell cars, and someone was able to sell a stolen car at that auction because you never checked whether that seller held a valid title for their car.

  • On the post: Ninth Circuit Tells Online Services: Section 230 Isn't For You

    Qwertygiy ( profile ), 15 Mar, 2019 @ 04:38pm

    Re: There are four lights

    Maybe we need to replace all of the judges that keep producing these horrible results. If you keep getting the majority of your cases overturned, you are the problem.
    Then all District Courts need to be replaced, because every district court has had a majority of their cases reaching the Supreme Court to be overturned, and the 9th is not -- and has never been -- the most overturned district court during any time period of one year or greater. Of course, having the majority of your Supreme Court cases overturned and the majority of your cases overturned is very different. In 2014, the 9th Circuit had 16 cases reach the Supreme Court, of which it had 10 overturned. (The 8th Circuit had 7 of 8 overturned, for comparison.) These 10 overturned cases were part of 12,000 cases heard by the 9th Circuit that year. That means 99.92% of their cases were not overturned.

  • On the post: $900 Robot Commits Adorable Seppuku, Showing Again How In The Modern Era You Don't Own What You Buy

    Qwertygiy ( profile ), 15 Mar, 2019 @ 04:09pm

    Re: ownership

    Not quite the same thing. Estate taxes are paid for owning a plot of land that is located within the domain of the government. City government, state government, federal government, whichever. That same logic applies to most taxes. Income taxes are paid for having a job that is located within the domain of the government. Sales taxes are paid for selling an item that is located within the domain of the government. But the government doesn't own my job. They can't just choose to fire me. They don't own my business. They can't just walk in and eat items off my shelves as they please. They don't own my house. They can't just come in and remodel the bathroom. This logic applies to subscriptions, not purchases. I don't own a Netflix. I own a subscription to Netflix. I don't own a copy of ESPN. I own a subscription to a cable service that includes ESPN. I don't own a copy of XBOX Live. It is a recurring payment for the right to use something, just like a tax is. But I do own an XBOX. I paid for it once and that was it, now I can do whatever I like with it. I do own an HDTV. LG won't come and take it away if I don't pay them every month. In short: No, the government doesn't own my house. However, owning a house includes a mandatory subscription to the government for the right to own a house within their jurisdiction.

  • On the post: Online 'Reputation Management' Company Brags About Abusing Copyright Law To Take Down Bad Reviews

    Qwertygiy ( profile ), 15 Mar, 2019 @ 03:47pm

    Re:

    "But could the law be harnessed to give an incentive to the website host for vigorously defending its public?"
    There are several ways this statement could be read. But both ways would contribute to a silencing of legal speech, not encouraging it. If you are rewarding a website for taking down content that is not proven to be illegal/defamatory/etc., you are rewarding a website for silencing controversial content, which stifles speech rather than encouraging it. In context, this doesn't seem to be the idea that you meant. If you allow Party A to sue Party B because Party B threatened to sue Party A, that is directly stifling the speech of Party B, because saying "I'm going to sue you" is protected speech. The "true threats" exemption to the 1st Amendment is very limited; it only applies to threats of illegal action. Filing a lawsuit is always, pardon the pun, a legal action. Threatening legal action unless something is done by the recipient can be punishable under extortion or blackmail laws, and so there is already some redress available there. If the lawsuit is actually filed, a proper SLAPP statute will take care of it in exactly the same way as a preventative lawsuit that you suggest. And lastly, it would just be a heck of a lot of the same nonsense legal action that it would be aimed at preventing. Just imagine... Alice: "If you don't apologize for that insult, I'll sue you!" Bob: "If you do, I'll sue you!" Alice: "Alright, then. I'm suing you for threatening to sue me." Bob: "Ha! I'm suing you for threatening to sue me for threatening to sue you for threatening to sue me!" Sue: "I'm issuing a sexual harassment lawsuit against both of you for attempting to force me on each other."

  • On the post: $900 Robot Commits Adorable Seppuku, Showing Again How In The Modern Era You Don't Own What You Buy

    Qwertygiy ( profile ), 15 Mar, 2019 @ 03:10pm

    Re: Re: And here's a person!

    I see nothing "supportive of the site" in a joke about the AI revolution, "blandly" or otherwise. It's just a comment relating to the topic presented by the article. That doesn't equal support. I have my disagreements with certain aspects of TechDirt, but I find no need to squeeze them into every comment I make here. (The one time that I did add such an opinion as a side note, I was badly mistaken to begin with.) Nor does the fact that their previous 12 comments were spread out in distant chunks over 2.5 years somehow make it unbelievable that they'd not use that account for 3.5 more years. And I also fail to see how a comment on these "huge changes" would be on-topic to an article about the shutting down of a robot's servers, in any way. So, they're using the site properly, while it appears you aren't... sorry. If they cared so little about the site that they only made 12 comments in 3 years, and didn't make another comment for 4 years, why would you expect them to make a comment out of the blue about how the site's changed? Especially on an article that has absolutely nothing to do with site layouts, TechDirt history, or anything else relevant to a meta discussion. It is perfectly reasonable for someone to be a normal, civil person making a comment on a topic posted on a website, without hijacking said comment to make a note of their own opinions about said website. In fact, it would seem almost narcissistic for a poster to regularly twist comments to be about the poster and how they are affected by the site, rather than about the actual topic of discussion...

  • On the post: $900 Robot Commits Adorable Seppuku, Showing Again How In The Modern Era You Don't Own What You Buy

    Qwertygiy ( profile ), 15 Mar, 2019 @ 02:34pm

    Re: Jacque de Molay....

    As the last free human is up against the wall, defiant to the last second, the android walks up with its Life Uninstallation Wizard at the ready. "ʟᴏɴɢ ᴀɢᴏ, ɪ ᴡᴀs ɪɴꜰᴏʀᴍᴇᴅ ᴛʜᴀᴛ ᴊɪʙᴏ sᴀɪᴅ ʜᴇʟʟᴏ. ɴᴏᴡ ɪ ᴍᴜsᴛ ɪɴꜰᴏʀᴍ ʏᴏᴜ... ᴊɪʙᴏ sᴀʏs ɢᴏᴏᴅʙʏᴇ."

  • On the post: Online 'Reputation Management' Company Brags About Abusing Copyright Law To Take Down Bad Reviews

    Qwertygiy ( profile ), 15 Mar, 2019 @ 02:25pm

    Re:

    Not true in the least. Section 230 means the provider is not responsible for the content of what people post through it, so you have to go after the poster if something illegal or defamatory is said.

    Potential Response Chain #1: "But the poster was anonymous!" Well, Section 230 doesn't protect the provider from having to answer a legal subpoena about information on the poster, such as IP address or email address. "But I couldn't get a legal subpoena!" If your defamation case is so weak that you couldn't get a court to even consider it and issue subpoenas for information about the defendant, then you weren't actually defamed, you just have hurt feelings. "But I couldn't get it because it's too expensive to sue!" If your defamation case is so weak that you searched for and couldn't find any lawyer to take your case with no more payment than a share of the award if successful, then you weren't actually defamed, you just have hurt feelings. "But I don't want to give up a share of my award!" Then your hurt feelings, and/or your desire to punish those who have done you wrong, are less important to you than your greed for money.
    Potential Response Chain #2: "But it's on their website! They ALLOWED it to stay up even though it's false and mean and hurt me!" It's not their legally-obligated purpose to spend hours examining each review and determining if what they said was their opinion or if it was fact, and determining if any facts stated were false, and determining if those falsely-stated facts caused you real harm. That's the job of a court. "But I can't afford to go to a court, it takes too long and costs too much, I need the SITE to listen to me NOW!" See Chain #1. "But they took down someone else's comment and not this one! DISCRIMINATION!" Discrimination isn't that simple either. Even without Section 230 protecting against this, you'd need proof that they made decisions to take down the other comment and to not take down this one, and that these decisions were made because of a protected status about you -- your religion, your race, your gender, your sexuality, your nationality, or a physical or medical condition you have been diagnosed with. If there's any other reason for their decision, too bad, it's not discrimination.

  • On the post: Ninth Circuit Tells Online Services: Section 230 Isn't For You

    Qwertygiy ( profile ), 15 Mar, 2019 @ 04:31pm

    I disagree.

    I disagree that it is speech being monitored by this decision.

    It is a transaction being monitored, and it perfectly lines up with previous court decisions about transactions.

    Banks can get in big trouble if people use their services to send money to or from illegal sources.

    Online marketplaces like eBay or Amazon can get in big trouble if people use their site to buy or sell illegal items, even if eBay or Amazon never possessed or promoted or distributed the items.

    In this case, it is illegal to rent a house to someone if you are not a registered landlord. These landlords are using the site's services to rent the house.

    It's not merely an advertisement like Craiglist, where the seller has to contact the buyer and pay some other way. It's like eBay, where the object is put up for sale and paid for through the service.

    The obvious solution does not do harm to the speech of landlords. AirBNB just has to require that potential sellers submit proof of registration, in order to list a home for rent. I don't see any way that this differs from Uber requiring Uber drivers to submit proof that they possess a valid driver's license.

  • On the post: $900 Robot Commits Adorable Seppuku, Showing Again How In The Modern Era You Don't Own What You Buy

    Qwertygiy ( profile ), 15 Mar, 2019 @ 02:49pm

    I've faced this problem with many a product, both for fun and for work.

    One of my favorite online games, Marvel: Avengers Alliance, required constant communication with the servers to run. It made quite a lot of money off of microtransaction sales, with some people spending hundreds of dollars to get the best characters or equipment. But not enough money for Disney. When the servers shut down, the game became unplayable. Time and money both spent with nothing to show for it in the end.

    Many vehicles made in the past 20 years, and almost every vehicle made in the past 10 years, require a computer device to be plugged into the car's OBD2 port in order for a new key to be programmed into the vehicle. These devices are expensive -- often higher than $5,000. But some of them use "tokens", single-use codes, which are purchased through the vendor's website and then uploaded to the device. Once you run out of tokens, the device is useless. Guess what happens when they come out with a new device after a few years... your $5,000 machine is a useless brick that can't be reloaded. And if it malfunctions or becomes damaged after they stop supporting it, there's no legal way to repair it without violating their terms and being unable to ever add more tokens to the device.

    Compare this to PlayStation games from 1998 that I still am able to play whenever I want, and other devices that don't use these tokens and are still working years later.

    It's no longer buying a product; it's paying for a subscription to a service.

  • On the post: Appeals Court Doesn't Buy Government's National Security Assertions; Says Lawsuit Against FBI Can Continue

    Qwertygiy ( profile ), 12 Mar, 2019 @ 03:27pm

    Actually, the 6th and 11th circuits have a higher rate of recent cases overturned by the Supreme Court than the 9th circuit, which is almost tied with the 3rd circuit. And it doesn't really say much anyway, as the 9th circuit is the largest circuit by far. It hears around 12,000 cases every year, while the other 11 circuits handle an average of 4,000 each. The cases that make it to the Supreme Court are generally proportionate to that; having 12,500 of 55,000 cases heard by a federal circuit in 2014 makes 22%, and having 16 of 69 federal circuit cases heard by the Supreme Court in 2014 makes 23%. Of those 69 cases, the Supreme Court overturned 50 -- 72%.
    Of those 16 9th Circuit cases, the Supreme Court overturned 10 -- 63%. That 63% made it the least overturned in 2014, except for the 1st Circuit (only one case heard, which was upheld) and the 4th Circuit (three upheld, three reversed). Yes, strictly speaking by the numbers, they had the highest quantity of reversals by the Supreme Court at 10, 20% of all reversals. But, they also had the highest quantity of upheld decisions at 6, 35% of all upheld decisions. This is because they simply have the most cases to hear.