Matt Bennett 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (2814)

• On the post: White House Anonymously Throws Gigi Sohn Under The Bus After Screwing Up Her FCC Nomination

  

  Matt Bennett ( profile ), 17 Mar, 2023 @ 07:01pm

  1) the person to which you replied is liberal,

  Self-evident, without question the case.

  2) hate was the driver for the comment rather than experience

  I very much doubt it, just politically indoctrinated, but it actually wouldn't change the statements if it were.

• On the post: Feckless Axios Fired A Reporter For Correctly Identifying DeSantis Propaganda

  

  Matt Bennett ( profile ), 17 Mar, 2023 @ 06:57pm

  All political press releases are "propaganda" you moron

  I get that you hate DeSantis, but that doesn't make it any more propaganda than normal. Axios is liberal as hell. They fired the reporter because he burned his bridges with the administration that he was supposed to report on and made a huge scene. Not respected any more. He acted like a child and got fired. Fucking cry about it. And jesus christ how is this not a political blog, now?

• On the post: Elon Musk Still Loves ‘Shadow Banning’ Those He Doesn’t Like

  

  Matt Bennett ( profile ), 17 Mar, 2023 @ 06:46pm

  Neat, so you're using 20 year old software? I'm exaggerating, things sometimes persist in software for a long time. When was the last time a 3.5" floppy was relevant? Still the save icon. Anyway, not what shadowban has meant for a very long time.

• On the post: Elon Musk Still Loves ‘Shadow Banning’ Those He Doesn’t Like

  

  Matt Bennett ( profile ), 17 Mar, 2023 @ 06:43pm

  That is actually the backstop. The 2nd is there to protect the 1st.

• On the post: Elon Musk Still Loves ‘Shadow Banning’ Those He Doesn’t Like

  

  Matt Bennett ( profile ), 17 Mar, 2023 @ 06:42pm

  Yes or no, Koby: Do you believe the government should have the legal right to compel any privately owned interactive web service into hosting legally protected speech that the owners/operators of said service don’t want to host?

  That questions is massively irrelevant. Twitter DID shadowban. Then lied about it before congress. Also, gonna point out that you DO believe that, at least in regards to cakes. Again.

• On the post: Elon Musk Still Loves ‘Shadow Banning’ Those He Doesn’t Like

  

  Matt Bennett ( profile ), 17 Mar, 2023 @ 06:37pm

  It's not just a slight algorithmic weighting if that's what you're going for. It means that you're just never going to see those persons tweets, ever. Even retweets are broken up. It means when you search for someone, it just doesn't fucking show.

  "Twitter said that the use of the phrase "shadow banning" was inaccurate, as the tweets were still visible by navigating to the home page of the relevant account"

  Yeah, so 1) Twitter doesn't control the definition of "Shadowban" 2) that bullshit excuse doesn't mean much if people can never find you in the first place, does it? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_banning

• On the post: Elon Musk Still Loves ‘Shadow Banning’ Those He Doesn’t Like

  

  Matt Bennett ( profile ), 17 Mar, 2023 @ 06:26pm

  When the facts are on your side, pound on the facts. When the law is on your side, pound on the law.

  Both are, in fact. A lot of quantity, too, for that matter.

• On the post: Elon Musk Still Loves ‘Shadow Banning’ Those He Doesn’t Like

  

  Matt Bennett ( profile ), 17 Mar, 2023 @ 06:24pm

  Does anyone who knows how Twitter operates actually agree with that?

  Twitter doesn't control the definition, but yes, basically everyone but Masnick agrees that it fits the definition of shadowbanning. Even Masnick does but he's pretending it's some "new" definition (of the last 5 years, and also no it's not)

• On the post: Elon Musk Still Loves ‘Shadow Banning’ Those He Doesn’t Like

  

  Matt Bennett ( profile ), 17 Mar, 2023 @ 02:00pm

  "Shadowban" means a thing.

  You. Are. Lying. The Vice article you quote is merely engaging in some very long-form dissembling and FUD. "Shadowban" means a thing. All definitions change over time, more so on the internet, but it's meant that thing for a long time, well before 2018. "Shadownban" does not mean what Twitter defined internally as "shadowban". "Shadowban" very definitely means what Twitter was calling "visibility filtering." Jay Bhattacharya was verifiably shadowbanned. He didn't even know about it until the twitterfiles came out. This was probably at government request, either personally or as part of a request to mute "True, but misleading" (whatever the fuck you think that means) medical info, but that part is not verified, just strongly suggested. We know at least several hundred people were shadowbanned. Thus, when Twitter execs said in congressional hearings that they didn't "Shadowban", they were lying, and thus guilty of perjury. They are unlikely to ever be prosecuted for that, but the fact remains. Now, is Musk shadowbanning SM competitors? Unclear, your friend "Casey" likes to depend on hearsay from single, anonymous sources with suspect motivations, so he's not a very reliable journalist. It certainly seems possible. But I have to point out that shadowbanning mentions of competitors is way, way less nefarious than shadowbanning political speech or the qualified opinion of medical experts.

• On the post: Ninth Circuit Tells Twitter It Can’t Reveal Exactly How Many National Security Letters It Receives Because The DOJ Showed It Some Scary Stuff

  

  Matt Bennett ( profile ), 17 Mar, 2023 @ 01:34pm

  Uh no. I mean, I’ve written about this particular case before

  I literally don't believe anything you say at this point, including about things you claim you've said previously. I mean maybe you did, but your saying so is no indication. BTW: Show those fucking "reports that suggest" dozens and dozens weekly of fed-Twitter meetings had "nothing to do with removing content" You made a (preposterous) claim, back it up.

  We’ll see if Musk is actually willing to pay a lawyer to try to push this to the Supreme Court. I’m somehow doubtful of that

  You realize this could be related to the government directed censorship, right? DOJ/State demands a bunch of info, cuz-we-say-so, a month or two later Twitter receives lists of people gov claims either violated ToS or are foreign agents. (no need for either to be true) "We're definitely not ordering you, but of course we can be an even bigger pain for you if you don't comply" Of course you don't, you're intent on denying such gov directed censorship took place. Let's see those "reports" that suggest they never asked for content removal in those meetings, Masnick. You actually said "all reports" but since I know there are reports that DON'T suggest that, I'm not gonna call you on that.

• On the post: Ninth Circuit Tells Twitter It Can’t Reveal Exactly How Many National Security Letters It Receives Because The DOJ Showed It Some Scary Stuff

  

  Matt Bennett ( profile ), 17 Mar, 2023 @ 01:18pm

  This case is not about censorship of accounts, though, is it?

  It's actually probably related. DOJ/State dept asking for info so that they can compile a list of accounts that they're going to claim are are violating TOS or whatever. Twitter/Musk would be able to tell, and the fact that they're so driven to release it suggests to me they think it's related.

• On the post: Ninth Circuit Tells Twitter It Can’t Reveal Exactly How Many National Security Letters It Receives Because The DOJ Showed It Some Scary Stuff

  

  Matt Bennett ( profile ), 17 Mar, 2023 @ 10:43am

  Jesus, and you guys have been whining about cherry-picking lately?

  ......That said, no organization is perfect and part of the FBI obviously overreached with respect to online censorship.

  Same fucking tweet.

• On the post: Ninth Circuit Tells Twitter It Can’t Reveal Exactly How Many National Security Letters It Receives Because The DOJ Showed It Some Scary Stuff

  

  Matt Bennett ( profile ), 17 Mar, 2023 @ 09:43am

  Do you somehow think because you don't like Musk, Musk is somehow overly friendly to or trusting of the Federal government? Cuz that isn't true.

• On the post: Ninth Circuit Tells Twitter It Can’t Reveal Exactly How Many National Security Letters It Receives Because The DOJ Showed It Some Scary Stuff

  

  Matt Bennett ( profile ), 17 Mar, 2023 @ 09:41am

  yay, I agree with a techdirt author about a gov-Twitter matter

  That's it, just thought it was worth noting. I'm sure if Masnick wrote it he's say "State Secrets is Free Speech" or some other orwellian nonsense.

• On the post: Setting 1st Amendment Myths On Fire In A Crowded Theater

  

  Matt Bennett ( profile ), 17 Mar, 2023 @ 09:36am

  This is great.

  It’s because of sentiment like Matthew’s and every single fucking person like him that caused the pandemic to go on for two years too long.

  The "pandemic" didn't go on for two years. Lockdowns did. Depending on your definitions the pandemic actually became endemic a few months in or is still going. None of which lockdowns affected, at all, as scientifically proven. I mean that was obvious a short time in, but it's scientifically proven, now. The Science (TM) in on my side, it was never on yours, though the propaganda of a few government officials was. People didn't get to see their grandparents for the last few months of their lives because shitheads like you really feel good about telling others what to do.

  Fuck you Matthew, and here’s hoping there’s a covid molecule flying around with your name on it.

  Yes, this is the typical hateful liberal in action. Don't worry about me, tho, I've had covid 3 times now, (once before vaccines were available, twice after getting vaccinated, thanks for asking) I'll be fine. Have to wait to die in a BLM riot, or something.

• On the post: Setting 1st Amendment Myths On Fire In A Crowded Theater

  

  Matt Bennett ( profile ), 17 Mar, 2023 @ 09:25am

  I start swearing when people are stupid fucks, which happens quite a lot, unfortunately, you stupid fuck.

• On the post: Yes, The US Government Threatening To Block TikTok Violates The 1st Amendment

  

  Matt Bennett ( profile ), 17 Mar, 2023 @ 09:21am

  No, they paid for the services they received as they’re required to do by law.

  What? No. I honestly think you're confused. I'm talking about all the think tanks and NGOs they hired to lobby twitter.

• On the post: Yes, The US Government Threatening To Block TikTok Violates The 1st Amendment

  

  Matt Bennett ( profile ), 17 Mar, 2023 @ 09:19am

  SO you're a hateful liberal, check

• On the post: Yes, The US Government Threatening To Block TikTok Violates The 1st Amendment

  

  Matt Bennett ( profile ), 17 Mar, 2023 @ 09:19am

  Which fucking reports, Masnick?!?

  I’ve already explained to you which ones.

  No, you haven't, at all. On the other post you claimed "All reports suggest otherwise". [meaning no requests to remove content] You didn't say "No reports suggest they did", you said "all reports suggest otherwise". So I ask you again, you hack, which fucking reports suggest that these meetings were NOT about removing content? Share the links. If you just said a said a dumb thing and misspoke, just admit that, it's fine, we all do, but don't you fucking dare pretend you "already" provided proof-positive of something that doesn't exist.

  All of the documentation, not just those in the Twitter files, demonstrated that there was a robust information sharing program going on, with most of it focused on the government sharing information with the companies not for the purpose of censorship

  That is some real Baghdad Bob shit right there. Not only is it refuted on it's face by the evidence, but no one could possible believe that you believe that. "robust information sharing program"....about the data and content Twitter most definitely knew better than the alphabet agencies did? About real medical experts saying true things? Cuz yeah, that's in the "reports". The "reports" make clear that it isn't just lists of people violating TOS and foreign agents. Which is still "removing content" btw, but we have proof-positive about removing content based on the content. But all of it, including the "information sharing", had the intent of removing content. But even that fig-leaf excuse (which is just laughable, you dishonor yourself by clinging to it) clearly doesn't apply in many cases. Add in some Orwellian Newspeak, too:

  not for the purpose of censorship but so they were aware of accounts the government was aware of were engaging in things like CSAM or foreign influence operations.

  Listen to that fucking pretzel of a sentence. "so they were aware of accounts the government was aware of" Fucken amazing. Does contorting yourself like that help you hide your face when you say this shit? You're also the fist person I've ever heard mention "CSAM" in this context, you just throwing some FUD in too? Cuz if the FBI was meeting with Twitter to ban kiddie porn I don't think anyone would much care. But no, that wasn't it. Share a link to these "reports" you think show that the meetings weren't about removing content you fucking hack.

• On the post: White House Anonymously Throws Gigi Sohn Under The Bus After Screwing Up Her FCC Nomination

  

  Matt Bennett ( profile ), 17 Mar, 2023 @ 08:50am

  Actually, if we're lucky, no one will actually pass the senate until the next administration.

Next >>