Stephen T. Stone 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (27047) comment rss

  • On the post: Section 230 Is Dying By A Thousand Workarounds, And Massachusetts Just Added Another One

    Stephen T. Stone ( profile ), 14 Apr, 2026 @ 06:24pm

    Pot, kettle, black.

  • On the post: 438 Experts Said Age Verification Is Dangerous. Legislators Are Moving Forward With It Anyway.

    Stephen T. Stone ( profile ), 14 Apr, 2026 @ 06:23pm

    Well, there’s always the approach of talking about what those awful outcomes actually are and how they’ll affect the average person. Age verification effectively becoming a censorship “lock” for content the government finds “harmful” where the only “key” is personally identifying information, for example, can result in the government broadening its scope of “harmful” content to include innocuous content that the government disfavors due to partisan political hackery (e.g., age-appropriate LGBTQ-friendly content). Imagine a queer teenager being locked out of a forum for other queer teenagers because they live in a state where any queer content is considered “harmful” and therefore locked behind age verification that the average teenager can’t (and shouldn’t) do.

  • On the post: Oh God: RFK Jr. Unveils Plan To Be First Sitting Cabinet Secretary To Host A Podcast

    Stephen T. Stone ( profile ), 14 Apr, 2026 @ 05:32pm

    You hate non-white people, so of course you would assume the other side hates white people.
    Yeah, pretty much on the money. They think movements like Black Lives Matter are anti-white because every white power movement is anti-Black.

  • On the post: Trump Invites More Criminal Acts By Promising Pardons To Everyone Who Works For Him

    Stephen T. Stone ( profile ), 14 Apr, 2026 @ 05:11pm

    Didn’t George Washington bemoan the idea of political parties?

  • On the post: Trump Invites More Criminal Acts By Promising Pardons To Everyone Who Works For Him

    Stephen T. Stone ( profile ), 14 Apr, 2026 @ 05:10pm

    And so far as I know, Biden’s only preëmptive pardon was for his son Hunter, and that was only for crimes Hunter might have committed so the Trump regime couldn’t maliciously prosecute Hunter out of petty political revenge. I can’t even fault Joe for that one. A decent father would absolutely protect his son like that.

  • On the post: Section 230 Is Dying By A Thousand Workarounds, And Massachusetts Just Added Another One

    Stephen T. Stone ( profile ), 14 Apr, 2026 @ 05:06pm

    See that’s funny, cuz that’s literally all you and Mike do, cake boy.
    And yet, our opinions are informed by actual facts instead of whatever right-wing propaganda you’ve been feeding yourself. Whenever he cites facts, all you do is go “nuh-uh to your uh-huh” without offering any counter-citation (or a credible one, at any rate). Vibes alone do not make your argument credible.
    I literally think most of you are insane far left [slur]s
    I’m reminded of the well-known political compass template, in that you think the average Democrat lawmaker is, at a bare minimum, on the left side of the compass when, in reality, they’re about a quarter of the way to the right. I’d probably sit closer to the center than I think I would despite believing in leftist ideas such as “people should have free access to the necessities of life”. For all your whining about political partisanship, you’re too afraid to admit that most lawmakers⁠—regardless of their party affiliation⁠—are far closer to being far right than far left. If even I can recognize that fact, why can’t you?
    I’m just here to remind you the bubble you live in is not real life.
    …says someone who encases themselves in a bubble of right-wing propaganda. By the by, how do you feel about Trump depicting himself as Jesus Christ after arguing with the Pope and threatening to do a genocide?
    NR is a credible source.
    Barely. It has a known right-wing bias, which does diminish its credibility somewhat.
    NYT is left wing.
    The New York Times is not left-wing. If it were, it wouldn’t be trying so hard to sell the luxury hatred that is transphobia by being consistently transphobic for years.
    All you have is ad hominem.
    No, that’s all you have, or at least that’s all you offer. All you ever do is insult people, act like your opinion is objective fact even in the face of actual facts, and get angry over having to defend/justify the actions of a government regime that has cost the United States a ton of power, status, and credibility around the world. Even now, you’re getting angry at me for pointing that out, and you’re proving it by using a slur for the developmentally disabled. The only reason you’re even using that slur now is because right-wingers think Trump made using it “cool” again. I’m honestly surprised Mike hasn’t tossed that word in the spamfilter, all things considered⁠—and the fact that he hasn’t should put to rest the lie that Mike is an “extreme leftist”.
    If your chosen, far left outlets don’t cover it (and they choose not to, in very coordinated fashion) then you think you get to ignore the facts you don’t like.
    There are no “far left” outlets in mainstream media. At best, you have centrist outlets that dip their toes into leftist positions but are often sympathetic to right-wingers/conservatism. I again point to the New York Times and its years-long effort to push the Overton Window in a direction that legitimizes transphobia. If the NYT were “far left”, it’d be pushing in the opposite direction.
    The conservative … outlet who tells you facts you don’t like is still credible.
    I told you that the New Republic article you cited seemed credible despite the site’s rightward lean. Credibility is earned, not given, and a right-leaning news site loses points by default for aligning itself with a political ideology that values bullshit. If you think it doesn’t, all you have to do is look in the Oval Office. The apotheosis of modern American conservatism is the sitting President of the United States. You voted for that⁠—and you won. So why are you so angry about that?

  • On the post: 438 Experts Said Age Verification Is Dangerous. Legislators Are Moving Forward With It Anyway.

    Stephen T. Stone ( profile ), 14 Apr, 2026 @ 04:41pm

    When there’s been ~2 decades to study it, it does start to look like a bit of a filibuster, especially when a lot of the concerns are moral in nature.
    When the concerns can be summed up as “this technology is likely to result in some really awful outcomes for a significant amount of people that will collectively outweigh any positive use of the technology”? I’d say the filibustering is worth it.

  • On the post: 438 Experts Said Age Verification Is Dangerous. Legislators Are Moving Forward With It Anyway.

    Stephen T. Stone ( profile ), 14 Apr, 2026 @ 04:38pm

    Hundreds of doctors and scientists wrote that covid obviously came from bats in a wet market (that didn’t exist at that market), rather than….the bat virology lab a few blocks over.
    Has there ever been, at any point since the outbreak of COVID-19, a definitive and objective determination that the virus was sourced wholly and directly to that lab? Even though the lab leak theory is less plausible than the wet market theory, it’s not impossible that it happened, but I haven’t seen any major scientific body metaphorically say with its whole chest that the lab leak theory is the objectively true theory.
    lol, no one cares about “letters from experts”
    Guess we should just get rid of experts, then. I mean, it’s cool to be skeptical and all, but if you’re just going to dimiss experts in their field outright regardless of the field, the level of expertise, and/or the subject matter involved, we may as well just never again listen to a single learned person on any given subject and just let our own opinions be what guides us regardless of how me we know about the subject at hand. That seems like the perfect way to Make America Great Again.

  • On the post: The FAA’s “Temporary” Flight Restriction For Drones Is A Blatant Attempt To Criminalize Filming ICE

    Stephen T. Stone ( profile ), 14 Apr, 2026 @ 02:57pm

    drones can be made into a pretty good weapon
    When do you think the US government will deploy attack drones in US cities against US citizens who dare to criticize the government in ways the government doesn’t like?

  • On the post: Oh God: RFK Jr. Unveils Plan To Be First Sitting Cabinet Secretary To Host A Podcast

    Stephen T. Stone ( profile ), 14 Apr, 2026 @ 11:58am

    Jesse what the fuck are you talking about

  • On the post: Section 230 Is Dying By A Thousand Workarounds, And Massachusetts Just Added Another One

    Stephen T. Stone ( profile ), 14 Apr, 2026 @ 11:36am

    I literally do all the time.
    No, you don’t. The vast majority of your posts can be boiled down to three sentences: “This is my opinion. This is an insult aimed at people who don’t think like I do. This is me being angry that Trump won the election for some reason.” If you cited more facts and offered actual sources for those citations⁠—and I mean sources with credibility instead of blatantly partisan outlets that have every reason to fudge/lie about data for their interests⁠—you might not get flagged as much as you do. Toning back on the insults and the inexplicable anger over getting everything you voted for might help, too.
    when I do it, for you, you of course ad hominem because you don’t like the data presented
    You tend to cite sources that have a specific partisan lean, and that lean colors that source’s credibility. You don’t have to cite “far left” sources (and there’s no mainstream “far left” media you can even cite in the first place), but you would do well to cite sources that don’t have the stank of right-wing partisanship on them.
    that is not how section 230 works
    You ever think, for even a second, about how your approach to disagreeing with any point raised by a Techdirt article or a commenter in the comments⁠—insults, anger, acting like any disagreement with you is an existential threat⁠—kind of ruins any point you could have made if you had chosen to not be a dick about it? Like, I disagree with Arianity on a regular basis, but they’re generally not dicks about their disagreements with anyone (including me), so I’m more than willing to hear them out even when we disagree on a point of argument. That’s how we get a better understanding of each other’s positions and points, even if we end up agreeing to disagree. You just come in going “THIS IS MY POINT, FUCK YOU” all the time. That approach is going to get you flagged on sight, as well it should. Don’t like it? Don’t use that approach.
    He is completely, utterly wrong.
    And if you hadn’t proven yourself to be wrong about a great many things you say you’re always right about⁠—like, say, non-discrimination law⁠—maybe people might listen to you. But you have. So they don’t.
    at least I don’t try to use myself as a citation
    In the past hundred posts I know you’ve made, you’ve cited a credible source for a claim of fact all of maybe once. Saying “Mike’s wrong” or “I’m right” is not a citation of fact. Linking to a source that cites facts backing up a claim is a citation of fact. Do that more and maybe you’ll rebuild your non-existent credibility. But until that day comes? Enjoy being flagged every time you post⁠—because that state of affairs won’t change until you do.

  • On the post: Nevada Court Latest To Say Mandatory Detention Of Migrants Is Illegal

    Stephen T. Stone ( profile ), 14 Apr, 2026 @ 11:21am

    It is like the courts don’t realize who can actually benefit and harm them today.
    That sounds like a threat to the judiciary. You’re not trying to threaten the judiciary, are you?

  • On the post: 1,000+ Hollywood Insiders Write Letter Opposing Paramount/Warner Bros Merger

    Stephen T. Stone ( profile ), 14 Apr, 2026 @ 10:11am

    So you’re advocating lawfare.
    No, they’re advocating for people in positions of power using the levers of power available to them so they can at least slow down a merger that has no business happening. You raise an unintentional point, though: Why do you seem so amenable to a small group of people controlling the content of most-to-all of the media we see and the outlets through which that content is experienced?

  • On the post: Trump Invites More Criminal Acts By Promising Pardons To Everyone Who Works For Him

    Stephen T. Stone ( profile ), 14 Apr, 2026 @ 09:56am

    The Wall Street Journal should learn to take a joke
    She should be required, each time she says the equivalent of “it’s just a joke”, to actually explain the joke.

  • On the post: DOJ Is Using A Grand Jury To Force Reddit To Unmask An Anonymous User

    Stephen T. Stone ( profile ), 14 Apr, 2026 @ 04:49am

    A judge approved the subpoena.
    So what?

  • On the post: Section 230 Is Dying By A Thousand Workarounds, And Massachusetts Just Added Another One

    Stephen T. Stone ( profile ), 14 Apr, 2026 @ 04:47am

    you’re an idiot who knows nothing about section 230
    …says the guy whose entire argument is “you’re dumb” and doesn’t cite a single fact to back up even that argument.

  • On the post: Section 230 Is Dying By A Thousand Workarounds, And Massachusetts Just Added Another One

    Stephen T. Stone ( profile ), 14 Apr, 2026 @ 04:45am

    So … Is that really the idiotic argument you want to make?
    Two things:
    1. Stop otherwording people.
    2. The argument isn’t against actual safety measures, but against measures that will do more harm than good to the overall Internet ecosystem in the name of “safety” and/or “the children”.

  • On the post: Nevada Court Latest To Say Mandatory Detention Of Migrants Is Illegal

    Stephen T. Stone ( profile ), 14 Apr, 2026 @ 04:41am

    there was a specific law that took it out of their jurisdiction
    Cite it.

  • On the post: Nevada Court Latest To Say Mandatory Detention Of Migrants Is Illegal

    Stephen T. Stone ( profile ), 13 Apr, 2026 @ 10:03am

    Even if the co-equal branches don’t seem to be living up to the “checks and balances” hype, we’re a nation of millions spread across a considerable number of square miles. They can’t take us all at once.
    Trump and his cronies really do forget that they don’t have enough people to do everything they want to do. The ICE surges, for example, could only really be done in two or three major cities at most before the forces start running thing because ICE doesn’t have the numbers to do any more than that. And now that Trump is firing people for not being able to win when they do his bidding, those numbers will keep getting smaller. They’re going to cause a lot of damage on the way out, but they aren’t going to win.

  • On the post: Someone Filed a Bogus DMCA Notice to Kill a Story About A Sketchy SEO Firm. It Worked — Briefly.

    Stephen T. Stone ( profile ), 11 Apr, 2026 @ 09:42am

    There were several companies vying to be the next Napster, after Napster got shut down. Kazaa, Grokster, and others. Sure, they had some shenanigans with offshore corporate structures, but they did get investors and users.
    Different kind of functionality, different kind of liability. Not a 1:1 comparison here, especially since YouTube wasn’t made with the distinct intent of sharing copyrighted materials and Napster and its immediate successors kind of were.
    I think YouTube had pretty quickly reached a point where it would not be so easily destroyed.
    No. No, it did not. YouTube needed years, not months, to become “too big to fail”; in the time before that, the site could’ve damn well been done in by the copyright cartels. Anime alone could've brought down YouTube with the way people were posting whole shows and movies through split-into-parts uploads to fit within the upload limits from back in the day.
    Maybe the courts would’ve said it’s not good enough, and given some guidance for how complaints should be handled, but I doubt they’d have gone “full Napster” and burned it to the ground.
    You underestimate the copyright cartels and the willingness of the legal system to give them damn near everything they want.
    Becoming the big central video platform was just too tempting for companies to give up on altogether.
    That didn’t happen for a while. I mean, Viacom’s big lawsuit against YouTube was initially filed two years after YouTube had first gone online. While YouTube had become the biggest video site on the Internet, it was by no means “too big to fail” in 2007, even with Google owning the site.

Next >>