Stephen T. Stone’s Techdirt Profile


About Stephen T. Stone

Stephen T. Stone’s Comments comment rss

  • Nov 16th, 2018 @ 7:01pm

    (untitled comment)

    White Nationalism Is An Unstoppable Juggernaut

    For what reason, then, are Nazis and White supremacists so worried about “White genocide”? I mean, if White nationalism is as “unstoppable” as they say it is…

  • Nov 16th, 2018 @ 2:53pm

    Re: but who do you sue?

    Who is responsible for police brutality in a situation like this

    The police officer who committed the act of brutality.

  • Nov 16th, 2018 @ 2:49pm

    Re: 'They bring the best snacks to events you see.'

    Maybe, just maybe, if you don't want to be lumped in with a group/category, it might help to not take pictures with them and post those on your social media accounts, show support of what they say, and refuse to denounce them when called to do so.

    “What do you have when you have a Nazi and ten other people sitting at a table talking to him? Eleven Nazis.”

    (Note: Not calling anyone a Nazi, just using the saying to further the point of the quoted part of the prior comment.)

  • Nov 16th, 2018 @ 2:45pm

    Re: Re:

    Why can't they just sell their old games for $5 to $10 each

    Because no one in their right mind would pay $5 for a digital copy of an NES game. And even if the market considered that a fair price, Nintendo could only ever sell games for which it owns the copyrights/trademarks or games it could license with ease. Finagling the rights to a game like Batman (bless you, Sunsoft) would take more money than Nintendo could ever hope to make back through sales—and then some.

    Some of the best games (and a lot of the worst games) on the NES were licensed games—Tecmo Super Bowl and Total Recall, for example. Getting the rights issues cleared up would be a nightmare. ROM preservation is the only way many of those games will ever exist outside of thirty-year-old cartridges that may or may not work nowadays. I ain’t sayin’ Nintendo doesn’t care about preserving its library of games and its history for future generations…but I ain’t sayin’ it cares enough to preserve all of it.

  • Nov 14th, 2018 @ 7:02pm

    (untitled comment)

    You’re showing signs of having no facts or citations with which you can refute my points of argument.


  • Nov 14th, 2018 @ 5:16pm

    Re: Re: Correct me if I'm wrong

    hate speech as a term is far too vague - especially if legal regulation is involved

    …which is why hate speech laws, at least in the U.S., rarely get any traction in legislatures of all levels: The potential collateral damage that could be done to already-protected speech would outweigh any benefit gained by outlawing “hate speech”. The primary sticking point of any such proposition lies in its patently “vague” nature: What would qualify as hate speech, who would determine what qualifies, in what contexts would hate speech be legal to print/say, and how should we deal with pre-existing speech that would get dinged by a hate speech law if it were made after the passage of that law?

  • Nov 14th, 2018 @ 3:16pm

    (untitled comment)

    The question still stands: How can you know, with the absolute certainty of a divine supernatural being, that such prosecutions will happen “with Facebook's assistance and sanction”? What can you offer in terms of irrefutable, undeniable foreknowledge that will guarantee Facebook’s future assistance in such prosecutions?

  • Nov 14th, 2018 @ 1:53pm

    Re: Re:

    Only a Sith deals in absolutes.

  • Nov 14th, 2018 @ 1:17pm

    Re: You can't be serious

    French authorities will not just be involved in censoring people who mis-speak, they'll be prosecuting them, and doing it with Facebook's assistance and sanction.

    How do you know, with the absolute certainty of an omniscient supernatural deity, that this will come to pass?

  • Nov 14th, 2018 @ 12:47pm


    Hate speech is only speech YOU don't like.

    Got anything else to add beyond this tired tripe? We’ve heard it dozens of times before and it ain’t getting any more insightful or thought-provoking.

  • Nov 14th, 2018 @ 12:38pm

    (untitled comment)

    IF anyone tries to refute my statement, then I have, logically, added information to the fray.

    Nah, fam, all you’ve added is a bunch of trite contrarianism on top of your psychologically unhealthy obsession with Mike Masnick/Techdirt. Seek professional help, my child.

  • Nov 14th, 2018 @ 11:26am

    (untitled comment)

    I leave better insults than this in the toilet.

  • Nov 14th, 2018 @ 10:06am


    we don’t condone the growing antagonistic tone by … the President

    Say whaaaaaaaaaaat?

  • Nov 14th, 2018 @ 10:04am

    (untitled comment)

    it get more and more clear that there's no way one side is ever going to convince the other side of anything

    In fairness, one “side” is working from a place of facts and realities, while the other “side” is working from a place of “fuck you, I’m right no matter what you or ‘the facts’ say”. Given the inclinations of our current POTUS, I hope you can guess which “side” is which.

    One side feels one way, if you try to make your point as to way you feel that way, the other side either passive aggressively insults or aggressively insults you

    I ask questions in good faith. Specifically, I tend to ask questions that start with how, what, and for what reason—open-ended questions that provide less of an opportunity for simple yes-or-no answers and more of an opportunity to create context and understanding. (I tend to avoid why, using for what reason in its place, to head off potential misunderstandings about “motives” [i.e., why people hold a certain opinion] and stick to the opinion/facts in play.)

    with every post I see even touching on the subject of the president, there is only insults and never anyone every saying, "oh good point, I've never looked at it that way before" or "I didn't know that before, thanks for pointing it out so I can look into it" It's just insults.

    Well, that is what our current POTUS does, so…


    Are the days of just reporting facts without any slant to either side gone or is this just the way it is from now on?

    The days of “just reporting facts without any slant” have never been here to begin with. Facts require context to make sense, and news outlets often have more facts on their hands than they can reasonably publish in a given day. Bias will always exist in journalism because (A) people are people and (B) someone must always decide what stories to print, what facts to check, what facts get into the stories that go to print, and what context those facts will be presented in. You can print only a raw transcript of Trump saying his typical bullshit and let everyone try to make sense of it themselves, or you can print parts of that transcript while providing the context of where he spoke, what (if anything) prompted him to speak, how his voice sounded and body language looked, and other such factors that could provide a (somewhat) better understanding of his bullshit.

    Frankly, I think the best thing to do is ignore most of what he says—in person, on Twitter, whatever—and focus on both his direct actions and any speech/actions regarding Trump that are out of his control. If it comes from Trump, it is trolling; if something he says must be reported on, best to call him out on any lies (preferably by referring to them as “lies”) and provide proper facts/context to help readers understand why what he said is bullshit. “The caravan is an invasion!” sounds scary and makes the migrant caravan sound like an existential threat…until you learn that the caravan has a lot of women and children on it, was still hundreds of miles away from the border at the height of Trump’s “invasion” rhetoric, has only around 1,200 people on it, and was meant to give people who made plans for legal asylum requests a way to stick together and survive the trip. That is context; you can call it spin, but until you can provide a context based in fact (and not on Trump’s bullshit) that negates anything I have said here, that “spin” is based in a reality that Trump refuses to acknowledge because he is a racist.

  • Nov 13th, 2018 @ 4:21pm

    (untitled comment)

    See? Word soup.

  • Nov 13th, 2018 @ 3:55pm


    That document is just word soup.

    One of Techdirt’s regular trolls must have written it, then.

  • Nov 13th, 2018 @ 3:25pm

    (untitled comment)

    Initiative Q

    How dare they take the name of Q in vain.

  • Nov 13th, 2018 @ 1:05pm

    (untitled comment)

    Yeah, uh…your obsession with Mike Masnick is on you, not him. You’re the one who lacks the self-control necessary to stop turning your mental illness into words on a forum.

  • Nov 13th, 2018 @ 1:03pm

    (untitled comment)

    If "platforms" do not provide free fair forums under common law principles … they are LIABLE for all speech.

    If a White supremacist forum (e.g., Stormfront) does not provide a “fair” forum for people whose speech goes against the normal discourse you would find on that forum (e.g., a Black Lives Matter supporter), what legal action can then be brought against the forum?

  • Nov 13th, 2018 @ 12:57pm

    (untitled comment)

    Right To Be Forgotten, a mere matter of individuals, is on the same planet, yes, but entirely UNlike Chi-Com censoring in kind and degree.

    Here’s a fun question for you to consider: When Google is done being purged of results linked to RTBF requests, how long do you think people will wait before filing such requests with the actual news sites which hold the pages that those people want forgotten?

    RTBF is an affront to free speech because it has censorious intent from the get-go. To defend it in any way is to defend government-sponsored censorship—a lesser degree of censorship than found in China, yes, but government-sponsored censorship all the same.

More comments from Stephen T. Stone >>