Matt Bennett 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (2814) comment rss

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

    Matt Bennett ( profile ), 17 Mar, 2023 @ 08:48am

    straight men cannot be trusted with power.
    Misandrist, Heterophobic. More generally just proving that liberals are hateful af.

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

    Matt Bennett ( profile ), 17 Mar, 2023 @ 08:47am

    [citation needed] That would be interesting, but not even vaguely change my point. I know this is surprising, but I mostly read center-right and libertarian media, all of which had plenty objections to Sohn, none of which had anything to do with her personal life. Now it's certainly possible one of her proposed (very progressive) policies could have something to do with "groomer"/CSAM matters, much how there was actual porn in Florida school libraries. (I haven't heard anything to that effect either tho)

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

    Matt Bennett ( profile ), 16 Mar, 2023 @ 05:26pm

    Your ignorance proves nothing.
    Truly amazing to hear you of all people say that

  • On the post: Court Makes It Clear: Government Submissions To Twitter Flagging Program Do Not Violate The 1st Amendment

    Matt Bennett ( profile ), 16 Mar, 2023 @ 05:24pm

    I think Matty just has a deep-seated fear of the government
    Well I've read history books, so yes
    surprised Twitter don’t feel the same way
    to the extent that they were not more alarmed and shocked, yes.
    They obviously didn’t believe there was any coercion occurring
    This is directly contradicted actually.

  • On the post: Court Makes It Clear: Government Submissions To Twitter Flagging Program Do Not Violate The 1st Amendment

    Matt Bennett ( profile ), 16 Mar, 2023 @ 05:17pm

    If the state had compelled Masterpiece to decorate wedding cakes with pro-LGBT messaging, that would count. But all the state did was ask Masterpiece to sell the wedding cake itself.
    Incorrect and incorrect.
    is to imply that the government did, indeed, force Masterpiece to bake/decorate a wedding cake for the gay couple that sued the bakery. But at no point did that ever happen.
    Colorado ultimate failed, but they absolutely DID try to do exactly that.
    the bakery pulled out of making wedding cakes for the general public after the commission’s initial ruling.
    But only because they were being fined obscene amounts of money (well before SCOTUS took it up). Really not sure what point you think you're making there.
    Baking a wedding cake for a gay couple is not, in and of itself, an endorsement of homosexuality or same-sex marriage.
    It absolutely is and SCTOUS said as much. The entire case hinged on the fact that making the cake was expressive. You keep on saying MPS was just being asked to sell gay people a cake, and that's simply not true. They were being asked to make a custom cake for gay wedding, which was speech, and CO tried to compel that speech. I don't know what more to say. I don't even think you're arguing in bad faith, but you dramatically misunderstand the facts of the case and the text you keep quoting doesn't even support your claims. CO tried to compel speech, only stopped by SCOTUS. The end.

  • On the post: Court Makes It Clear: Government Submissions To Twitter Flagging Program Do Not Violate The 1st Amendment

    Matt Bennett ( profile ), 16 Mar, 2023 @ 04:55pm

    Mr. Bari Wiess of the NYpost, you're not really entitled to waste my time anymore, so I'm just skimming, but a few things leapt out at me:

    Where did Stacey Abrams say that votes were altered?
    You seem to want to really want to argue particulars, presumably to cherry pick and make your side look more virtuous, and I just don't give a fuck about your opinion on any of it. But Abrams DID claim continuously to have actually won the election and indeed never conceded. That is straight forwardly "Election Denial" open and shut. A republican would have been banned (also would have been pestered continuously to concede but that's a separate matter)
    Uh, yeah. It’s quite transparent
    Except when it's not and a giant pile of ballots is "discovered", or they block windows with cardboard, and if you point that out you're a "conspiracy theorist" for some reason.... (which is silly, conspiracies happen all the time)
    It mandated vaccines for government employees, and advised companies to do the same for their employees.
    Incorrect. They tried to force anyone working at a company of 100 or more employees to get vaccinated. No idea why they stopped there, the same principal (which is made up) could allow them to make anyone working anywhere get vaccinated. It was thrown out of course, as they knew it would, and I'd say that doing so when you knew the court would reject it but essentially just trying to force it through anyway is an impeachable offense, double so for eviction moratoriums.
    [Vaccine mandates] are also well-supported under U.S. law.
    They are not. There is precisely ONE precedent, from 1905, I believe (without googling). Against a disease literally several hundred times as deadly as covid. And every precedent from 120 years ago should be kept forever, totally unassailable, right? Several decades before fascism was invented, but the nazis would have fucking loved the concept. Have a special mRNA for the Jews, amiright? Fascistic af.

  • On the post: Court Makes It Clear: Government Submissions To Twitter Flagging Program Do Not Violate The 1st Amendment

    Matt Bennett ( profile ), 16 Mar, 2023 @ 04:16pm

    It matters in that if Twitter doesn’t face any repercussions from denying the government’s request,
    Incorrect

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

    Matt Bennett ( profile ), 16 Mar, 2023 @ 04:09pm

    Chinas Laws, the gobbling of data, and the fact that they have other “Uber” apps like WeChat gobbling up data and being used to target Chinese minorities gives a lot of circumstantial evidence that the app is doing the same thing. On the other hand aside from the fact that the app is very good at figuring out what videos you like, and perhaps getting data on you if you post something, your looking at a LOT of useless information right now.
    The app was actively hacking into iOS and getting all sorts of info it shouldn't have been until Apple got wise to it. (android too, but iOS has been a much tighter ship generally) That was years ago and supposedly solved now (we hope) but that's only cuz they got caught. (I forget the exact details, but I remember engineers were surprised by how far they got)

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

    Matt Bennett ( profile ), 16 Mar, 2023 @ 04:01pm

    As I keep telling you, Matthew, if there were actually evidence of what you claim was happening, then, yes, I would be arguing that it’s a 1st Amendment violation.
    No, you just keep claiming that. Like you agreed Twitter was meeting with dozens of federal agencies each week, and that if they were discussing removing content that would be a problem. But despite that basically the only thing they could want to discuss with Twitter, you said:
    "all reports suggest otherwise"
    Which fucking reports, Masnick?!? [Citation needed] Cuz I haven't seen any such reports. I've seen reports suggesting that they were talking about removing content, but none suggesting that they weren't. Also just the basic logic that that's the only thing they would want to talk about.
    Meanwhile, you once again ignore that this is us, AGAIN, criticizing Democrat policy positions that violate the 1st Amendment
    It actually just looks like defending the CCP, really, which is really fucken weird.
    As for the “national security powers,” claim that you seem to be making… um… that’s not how it works.
    Have you been here for the last 22 years? Cuz I don't think it's a good thing (indeed it's wrapped up with the bullshit at Twitter) but they can justify anything on national security grounds.
    but you have to actually demonstrate the actual threat, which the administration has not done.
    It seems demonstrated to almost everyone but you guys, Masnick. No, CCP malware is not the same as generic data markets (definitely not saying the data markets are good) and it's really fucking weird that you guys keep on trying to pretend they are.
    I will criticize anyone who actually violates the 1st Amendment no matter what party and for what purpose. But there needs to be actual evidence of it happening.
    Provably false

  • On the post: Court Makes It Clear: Government Submissions To Twitter Flagging Program Do Not Violate The 1st Amendment

    Matt Bennett ( profile ), 16 Mar, 2023 @ 03:40pm

    You claimed no such sites could possibly exist, and I gave you examples off the top of my head
    You gave irrelevant examples that no longer apply? So?

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

    Matt Bennett ( profile ), 16 Mar, 2023 @ 03:36pm

    I love this bit of victimhood bait

    And it’s kind of a giant middle finger to Sohn to suggest that the onus for shaking off a massive, well-coordinated smear campaign rested entirely on her shoulders.
    Nearly everything I heard claimed about her was true, and yeah, that's on her. Nothing personal about her, just that her policies sucked and she was a partisan attack dog. She could have explained her positions better (doubtful, everyone understood the, just disagreed) or been less of a nasty partisan online.
    As Sohn notes to the Post, you’re limited as to what you can say publicly when facing such attacks, especially if you care about your personal safety as an LGBTQ+ person in the current political environment Sohn, who would have been the first openly gay FCC commissioner, said the implication in the articles were “clearly tied to QAnon themes about LGBTQ+ people as groomers, as perverts, as sex traffickers.” And she said she felt it put her and her loved ones at risk.
    Oh bullshit. None of the objections about her I saw were based on her personal life. And no one worrying about "groomers" is worried about lesbians. This is just standard "if you dare disagree with me you are obviously doing it because of my [insert special minority status here]" Grow up, people opposed her because she wanted to socialize the internet and attack Fox News as if she got to choose their words for them. Whining that she only lost becasue of her sex life is further proof that she never should have been nominated.

  • On the post: CFPB Launches Long Overdue Probe Of Unaccountable Data Broker Market

    Matt Bennett ( profile ), 16 Mar, 2023 @ 03:22pm

    That's nice

  • On the post: Court Makes It Clear: Government Submissions To Twitter Flagging Program Do Not Violate The 1st Amendment

    Matt Bennett ( profile ), 16 Mar, 2023 @ 02:43pm

    That’s provably false.
    Actually, no, I was saying it effectively didn't as they would be sued into the ground (and the CO government is helping, btw) You're moving goal posts, you shill

  • On the post: Court Makes It Clear: Government Submissions To Twitter Flagging Program Do Not Violate The 1st Amendment

    Matt Bennett ( profile ), 16 Mar, 2023 @ 02:41pm

    And it would also literally be the first time he has done so.
    I have several times on this issue alone.

  • On the post: Court Makes It Clear: Government Submissions To Twitter Flagging Program Do Not Violate The 1st Amendment

    Matt Bennett ( profile ), 16 Mar, 2023 @ 02:40pm

    That's amazing. None of that actually reflects what you claimed earlier, nor really supports you now, but you're going to claim it does? (btw, provide a link next time jackass) Phillips was willing to provide a cake to gays. He was not willing to provide a cake specifically for a gay wedding. That's it, that's the whole thing. Keep in mind "speech" does not have to be actual lettering on the cake.

    the cake shop was ordered not only to provide cakes to same-sex marriages
    So compelled speech, check. Azucar also refused to make a cake, and colorado did not compel the speech. Apparently based on the content of the message, nothing else.
    Nothing in the majority ruling mentions that the state of Colorado ever tried to compel any kind of expression of speech from Masterpiece. If you can find something in the ruling that says otherwise, feel free to quote it.
    Sure, that's easy:
    Another indication of hostility is the different treatment of Phillips’ case and the cases of other bakers with objections to anti-gay messages who prevailed before the Commission. The Commission ruled against Phillips in part on the theory that any message on the requested wedding cake would be attributed to the customer, not to the baker. Yet the Division did not address this point in any of the cases involving requests for cakes depicting anti-gay marriage symbolism.
    Page 2 https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-111_j4el.pdf
    If you can’t even cite a single factual article or court ruling that explicitly says something to the effect of “the bakery was forced to make and/or decorate a cake for the customers that sued the bakery”,
    Bitch, you did. It's cute that you added "the customers that sued the bakery" there at the end, their wedding was long past, trying to weasel out? MPS was ordered to make wedding cakes for gay weddings. They claimed that wasn't compelled speech, but SCTOUS disagreed, and it was overturned. Fucking unbelievable you would waste my time like that.

  • On the post: Court Makes It Clear: Government Submissions To Twitter Flagging Program Do Not Violate The 1st Amendment

    Matt Bennett ( profile ), 16 Mar, 2023 @ 02:23pm

    We regularly criticized the policies (including the “hacked materials”
    No credit for pointing out the more loony applications. You fully supported their suspensions for supposed "hate speech" (not misunderstood movie quotes) and "misinformation". You supported Gadde, vociferously, and that was her whole deal. You're changing your tune now (which is good!) but now want to lie about your past position.
    Not true. Parler, Gab, Gettr, Truth Social and more all still exist. Don’t lie.
    This is dumb, you're pretending that because the target was only tragically maimed that means the shooting was an attempting murder. Also I was only talking about Parler, they were the ones promising "unmoderated" and ballooning in users because of it (which is when the shooting happened). Still alive but never the same. You yourself talk about how much Truth Social actually censors. Nice strawman tho!
    Yes. But all of the reports on that show that none of that was about removing content.
    Holy fuck, I've ONLY seen reports that it was about removing content. What ELSE could it be about? What else does the FBI want to talk to Twitter about? (even if under pretext they're terrorists or foreign agents? They still want you to remove the content!) The CDC? They want you to remove the anti-vax content. This is where it becomes hard to believe you could actually believe you're saying. What else could they talking about? "Yes. But all of the reports on that show that none of that was about removing content." Please cite such a report, preferably several.
    If it was shown to be about removing content
    Congrats, you've elevated "shown" to a weasel word. Because about the only more "shown" we could get was minutes of the meetings with "lets censor those deplorables!" spelled out. Would probably have to be several times.
    Yes. People leave law enforcement and go work elsewhere. You think once people leave the FBI they’re never allowed to work anywhere else?
    This is another case where I can't seriously think you actually believe that. This wasn't just a few random people, it was a coordinated resettlement. Across the country. And you guys cry when a couple execs move from the FTC to a telecom or the reverse.
    I haven’t seen such evidence. Can you point it out to me?
    Yes, you have. https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1610394284867436547
    And I have seen no evidence that the government requested specific topics throttled,
    Yes, you fucking have. This is sealioning. https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1633830108321677315
    This is false and we already discussed it
    This is a bold-faced lie. Twitter does not control the definition "shadow-banning", shadow-banning was a term coined by others and always meant what Twitter was calling "visibility filtering" internally. Bad guys doing bad things like to use euphemisms so it doesn't seem so bad, dontcha know? But they were shadowbanning as defined by the definition everyone else uses. It's also telling that they "defined" shadow-banning as some other obscure thing that they never did. Why? So they could lie under oath and say they didn't do that? That's not how that works. They committed perjury.
    They show that the government funded organizations to research foreign influence and misinformation policies.
    A hot second ago you claimed you were against misinformation policies. And what are you going to do with a "misinformation" policy but remove content? Jesus wept.
    Matt: try fucking harder. This stupid shit is getting tiresome and you’re just proving yourself to be a silly fucking moron.
    You fucking try harder, this is embarrassing. You are saying shit that you couldn't possibly actually believe.
    • Many dozens of FBI agents move across the country to work in one place is normal, somehow?
    • There many hours long meetings with fed agencies each week but they weren't talking about removing content, basically the only thing they would have an interest in Twitter doing for them? "All of the reports show otherwise" ORLY? SHOW ME.
    • You didn't see any evidence of Schiff demanding Paul Sperry get banned, or to censor "true but misleading" covid info? Bitch, you commented on the first one and agreed it was bad.
    • Not only was Twitter using some bizzaro world definition fine, but someone changed the definition afterwards (fucken how?) to pretend committed perjury? The perjury they committed by just straight lying?
    This is fucking sad. I waver between thinking of you as a partisan desperate to deny the truth or just a shill, but now I know.

  • On the post: Court Makes It Clear: Government Submissions To Twitter Flagging Program Do Not Violate The 1st Amendment

    Matt Bennett ( profile ), 16 Mar, 2023 @ 01:15pm

    And it didn’t. The Colorado state government ruled that Masterpiece Cakeshop violated the state’s LGBT-inclusive non-discrimination ordinance by refusing to serve a gay customer. The ruling found that the cakeshop refused to sell that customer a wedding cake despite having offered that cake to straight customers for years. Under the law, the bakery wouldn’t have violated the law if it had sold the cake but refused to decorate it with ostensibly pro-gay messaging. Again: Azucar Bakery won its anti-discrimination case precisely because it sold the customer a cake but refused to put anti-gay messaging on that cake.
    Please provide a citation, because none of that is true. MHS was happy to sell a cake, merely didn't want to write certain words (or otherwise design a cake specifically for a gay wedding, there were a lot different requests that were made). Colorado specifically tried to compel speech. Azucar was happy to sell a cake, merely didn't want to write certain words. Colorado did not compel the speech. There were no other material differences. SCOTUS even specifically cited that fact, and that CO had compelled the speech they agreed with and not the speech they didn't.
    And I know you’re gonna as...
    Not sure what "other foot" you're talking about, seems like the exact same case, Kentucky just has decided correctly.
    If the Colorado state government had tried to make Masterpiece put a pro-LGBT message on a cake
    They did, very specifically.
    I very likely would’ve come out against that
    All evidence so far is to the contrary. Again, your retelling of the Masterpiece case is counter-factual. I have already provided at least one document (the SCOTUS ruling) saying otherwise. You can provide citations in support of your version if you wish.

  • On the post: Court Makes It Clear: Government Submissions To Twitter Flagging Program Do Not Violate The 1st Amendment

    Matt Bennett ( profile ), 16 Mar, 2023 @ 01:01pm

    By your own testament, you’ve just proved yourself wrong, so thank you.
    It's amusing to me how badly you are misunderstanding the the argument about attempted murder. Arguing that the murder was unsuccessful is just...not an argument. It's meaningless.
    It’s not hyperbolic; that’s literally what Amazon stated as evidence
    It was a hyperbolic misrepresentation when Amazon said it to. Btw, if someone is making an actual, credible, violent threat (you have offered no evidence that was true, and particularly not that it was any more prevalent than on say, Twitter) the proper answer is to subpoena their information and charge them with that, not silence them.

  • On the post: Court Makes It Clear: Government Submissions To Twitter Flagging Program Do Not Violate The 1st Amendment

    Matt Bennett ( profile ), 16 Mar, 2023 @ 12:53pm

    Protesters will almost always be breaking some sort of law. Saying that using violence against them no matter what law they’re breaking is how you end up with images of otherwise peaceful protesters
    Well that's a dumb thing to say. Peaceful assembly is protected, by law, in fact. (don't block the roads tho, assholes) He then went on to list serious, violent crimes.
    who “protest” by engaging in arson, rioting, and looting
    "Rioting" is ambiguous but always means more than peaceful assembly, and violence is a suitable response to arson and looting. (not under the law of many blue states, but it should be)

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

    Matt Bennett ( profile ), 16 Mar, 2023 @ 12:44pm

    OK, I LOVE this.

    CCP spreads malware to everyone's phone, Masnick cries about 1st amendment violations. (the proper argument is "on what authority" but there's almost certainly some National Security power and passing a law is a heluva lot different than just declaring an Executive Order (Trump was just following Obama's precedent there)) **Government agencies spend hundreds of millions of dollars pressuring SM to ban people and entire topics of conversation, Masnick says "noting to see here". ** Perf, just perf. Couldn't have written a better script myself.

Next >>