Matt Bennett 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (2814) comment rss

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

    Matt Bennett ( profile ), 15 Mar, 2023 @ 02:35pm

    Then he will start to wonder when America got so fascist that a man can’t stand in the doorway of a public space without being harassed.
    You get that my whole concern is that all this is fascist af, right? The CCP will ALSO kick you off social media for daring to suggest their elections are rigged. Of course, they are. Or for that suggesting welding people into apartment blocks might be a bad way to deal with a pandemic. Weibo is a "private" company. I'm sure the CCP's requests to them are very polite.

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

    Matt Bennett ( profile ), 15 Mar, 2023 @ 02:29pm

    You’re advocating for fraud and voter disenfranchisement here.
    How? At what other point in history has a private org deemed itself the arbiter of truth and that it will shut you up for disagreeing with it's opinion of what is true? What if they're wrong? (they're wrong a lot) What if the "truth" is unevenly applied? No one kicked Stacey Abrams off of Twitter for alleging she actually won the GA governor race. She said that for 4 years.

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

    Matt Bennett ( profile ), 15 Mar, 2023 @ 02:23pm

    1. You're one to talk
    2. I did nothing of the kind, at least not here.

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

    Matt Bennett ( profile ), 15 Mar, 2023 @ 02:22pm

    Do you see how your argument pivoted from “smoking gun emails” to admitting there isn’t a smoking gun, but that’s proof it was coercive because the big bad government mob bosses are devious enough not to get caught saying it out loud?
    I do not, no, not even a little bit, and that's one hell of a construction. What I am saying is that creatively choosing words so that it does not LOOK like you are not making a demand is a very old game and does not actually mean you are not making the demand. And courts recognize that, generally.

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

    Matt Bennett ( profile ), 15 Mar, 2023 @ 12:25pm

    Unless you can prove that Schiff’s office coerced Twitter to take action on Sperry’s account, the suggestion could’ve always been ignored by Twitter.
    I have actually shown you that proof, and you ignored it, so I'm inclined not to bother again. Keep in mind Schiff's committee was also making noises about investigating Twitter around then. (not that that would be required to make it an implicit threat) And it wasn't ignored, Sperry was banned, with no rational suggested nor found since. But apparently success rates, even if 98%, according to Masnick and the Ninth circuit.

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

    Matt Bennett ( profile ), 15 Mar, 2023 @ 12:21pm

    When those emails don’t contain direct orders or any kind of coercive language
    Neither do the mobsters. Good thing no mob boss has ever been found guilty of conspiracy murder.....

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

    Matt Bennett ( profile ), 15 Mar, 2023 @ 12:20pm

    making sure they’re not full of mis- and disinformation
    No one should be trying to determine and label what is "misnformation". For MANY reasons of long standing principal but also because they have proved hilariously bad at that. If you want to refute someone, refute them. It's part of democracy. Removing things because you don't think they're true is not.
    trustworthy sources of factual information is one way of staying relevant.
    Oh, so they're sources of information now? Sources, in fact, because they removed (edited) the info they disagreed with and only or predominantly left that which they disagreed with? Interesting, re: CDA 230........

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

    Matt Bennett ( profile ), 15 Mar, 2023 @ 12:13pm

    What is there to debate with someone who apparently believes a mere suggestion from the government is tantamount to jackbooted censorious thuggery on par with state-sanctioned book burnings?
    What is there to debate with a person who sees snmoking-gun emails "Take care of Bobby fish-nose, I want it done by tomorrow" and then concludes that has NOTHING to do with Bobby getting shot that night? Or continually conflates a library not carrying a particular book with "book burning" or a "book ban"?!? So, right back at ya.

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

    Matt Bennett ( profile ), 15 Mar, 2023 @ 11:55am

    I ain’t got shit so I just make things up willy nilly to sound smart.
    When a mobster says "take care of him" that does not, in fact, absolve him of conspiracy to commit murder. It's an attempt to hide it though.

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

    Matt Bennett ( profile ), 15 Mar, 2023 @ 11:53am

    In 3 or 4 hours, when Masnick's 2005 site posts my reply, we can debate it then. Suffice to say ninth circuit is a joke and many of it's conclusions are just flabbergasting, but even then the comparison isn't so great. It only really addresses "please sir, this person, who we definitely don't hate for political reasons, we think they violated some TOS" but more importantly a state agency with no regulatory power is not a federal agency with a great deal of it and guns, nor a swarm of pressure groups paid hundreds of millions of dollars to well, pressure. You never did reply to all those detailed, specific tweets when I painstakingly led you to them, btw. Kinda forum blue-balls.

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

    Matt Bennett ( profile ), 15 Mar, 2023 @ 11:44am

    "Most liberal circuit court agrees with me (about something only sorta related) therefore all my opinions are validated!"

    Of course I think this is great news, because it massively increases the chances that SCOTUS will take up this issue, and I am quite sure they will not reach the same conclusions. This is not some weird YT algo case, this is a much more direct cause and effect. "Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?" As Orwellian as the California Secretary of State’s Office being a "trusted flagger" for some reason (Jesus, why?!? Who tf thought that was a good idea?), *they are not the fucken FBI". People do not generally feel free to deny the FBI. Nor a huge swarm of NGOs meeting with them weekly and inviting them to conferences (but hired to do so by DOJ, DOD, others). Here, right here, is an email suggesting Twitter employees didn't feel comfortable telling government "no" anymore: https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1610394294850064385

    That Twitter and Facebook allegedly removed 98 percent of the posts flagged by the OEC does not suggest that the companies ceded control over their content-moderation decisions to the State and thereby became the government’s private enforcers. It merely shows that these private and state actors were generally aligned in their missions to limit the spread of misleading election information. Such alignment does not transform private conduct into state action.
    I think that statement is laughably untrue on it's face. OF COURSE a 98% success rate means they have ceded over control of their censorship to a state agency. But this is funny for another reason, because you (and others) routinely cite a 40% rate as evidence that Twitter was not conducting gov censorship by proxy, to which my question is "At what part does it become government censorship, then?" The answer is apparently "never" because even 98% doesn't qualify. Why bring it up, then? Why pretend the success rate is a rebuttal when according to you (and some activist judges) no rate would ever make it censorship by proxy? Of course I believe the direct opposite: Even if Twitter NEVER listened it would still be infringement because a government agency tried to pressure (the FBI does not merely "request") Twitter into suppressing the speech of US citizens. Also this leapt out at me.
    Flagging a post that potentially violates a private company’s contentmoderation policy does not fit this mold.
    OK, what about all the times the FBI (and many, many, so many others) were NOT merely reporting about what they thought were TOS violations? (as if Twitter needed their help, it's pretty funny) When they were erroneously claiming US citizens were foreign agents (not sure why foreign agents don't get free speech, but that's a different question) or when they were asking that actual medical experts have their "True, but (supposedly) misleading" opinions suppressed? What about then? What about when the "request" is actual retaliation, as it was with Schiff's office vs Paul Sperry?!? I'm gonna give you some credit here, Masnick, cuz you're citing an actual court case making an argument rather than going "lol, I don't see anything here in these very incriminating documents" or talking about random gossip about Musk. But this ruling is manifest bunk and you give it far too much credence (almost fawning, really). Like I said the good news is that SCOTUS is almost guaranteed to take it up and overturn it and then it will be a precedent nation-wide.

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

    Matt Bennett ( profile ), 15 Mar, 2023 @ 10:57am

    I hope this helps you educated yourself. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship

    Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information. This may be done on the basis that such material is considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or "inconvenient".[2][3][4] Censorship can be conducted by governments,[5] private institutions and other controlling bodies.

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

    Matt Bennett ( profile ), 15 Mar, 2023 @ 10:53am

    Unfortunately, here in reality, that IS indeed how it works.
    Massively incorrect. "Censorship" does not mean "stop from talking everywhere". Not at all, never has. I honestly have no idea where you retards got the impression a lawsuit would have to be involved.
    Because, remember, even in Elon’s hot mess he calls Twitter, he IS allowed to kick anyone out for any excuse
    That would be censorship. Also legal, unless government asked him to do it.
    And as I seem to remember, he thought YOU were harassing Mike on Twitter.
    I have no idea why you think Musk knows who I am. Pretty sure he doesn't know who Masnick or Techdirt is, either. What the fuck is this shit?
    A corp can only engage in censorship not through moderation of their sites, but by silencing people through coercion, ala Kotick’s banning of Blitzchung, or through a civil suit, usually defamation.
    That is just massively, totally incorrect. I have no idea where this notion came from beyond totalitarian liberals wanting to pretend their censorship is not, in fact, censorship. I think what Blizzard did was VERY wrong (I deleted my account over it) but it is not materially different than Twitter banning someone. (also at government coercion, just the CCP rather than FBI) Actually rereading it now it's very clear you're just trying to narrowly craft a definition that makes the censorship you agree with "not censorship" for....."reasons" while everything you disagree with is still censorship for some reason. But that's not how words work, and that's not what the definition of censorship is. Now, please stop lying to people, "Playing at home" or not. That is a pretty deranged post, dude.

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

    Matt Bennett ( profile ), 15 Mar, 2023 @ 10:43am

    So pony up the evidence that a Social Media company (or Mike or any “leftist”) actively sued you for exercising your 1A rights
    No, dumbass. Twitter doesn't ahve to sue anyone for it to be censorship. That's just ... completely made up and nonsensical.

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

    Matt Bennett ( profile ), 15 Mar, 2023 @ 10:41am

    ....why did this make sense to you?

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

    Matt Bennett ( profile ), 15 Mar, 2023 @ 10:40am

    Everyone has an asymmetric power relationship with the federal government.

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

    Matt Bennett ( profile ), 15 Mar, 2023 @ 09:53am

    Then show us the missions statements that directly call for Twitter to “censor”.
    They're a little more sophisticated than that. "Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?"

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

    Matt Bennett ( profile ), 15 Mar, 2023 @ 09:13am

    and their rights….
    Definitely, absolutely, without question, not a "right". k, thx, glad we cleared that up.

  • On the post: Congress Lets The FCC’s Spectrum Auction Authority Lapse For No Good Reason

    Matt Bennett ( profile ), 15 Mar, 2023 @ 09:05am

    Based on previous responses I cannot think of a single thing that is true of.

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

    Matt Bennett ( profile ), 15 Mar, 2023 @ 07:24am

    Because “government-funded” and “government-directed” are not the same thing.
    Actually, yes, they are. Those grants come with mission statements. And there are usually handlers after the grant also.

Next >>