Matt Bennett 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (2814)

• On the post: Unanimous SCOTUS To States: No Strong-Arming Third Parties To Silence Those You Dislike

  

  Matt Bennett ( profile ), 01 Jun, 2024 @ 01:47am

  I really love that this article is not written byu MM

  cuz it proves MM wrong on every level.

• On the post: Ctrl-Alt-Speech: Won’t Someone Please Think Of The Adults?

  

  Matt Bennett ( profile ), 01 Jun, 2024 @ 01:38am

  no one cares about your shitty podcast

  seriously

• On the post: New Study: No, Social Media Does Not Hurt Offline Friendships For Kids

  

  Matt Bennett ( profile ), 08 May, 2024 @ 09:07pm

  Social Media pretty obviously harms kids.

  Yes, there's a TON of studies saying that. You're just cherry picking studies cuz you're effectively a paid shill. (who else you gonna sell your censorship, erm "Trust and safety" to?) This is sad.

• On the post: TikTok Dances Into Court, Slams Ban As Unconstitutional

  

  Matt Bennett ( profile ), 07 May, 2024 @ 11:00pm

  It's not unconstitutional, you're just an idiot who doesn't understand law

  And btw will lie and shill when you want to construct a narrative. I look forward to you saying....nothing, when the court cases don't go your way. Maybe crying about how you know law better than SCOTUS does.

• On the post: Justice Alito Won’t Block Texas From Enforcing Internet Age Verification Law

  

  Matt Bennett ( profile ), 02 May, 2024 @ 06:10am

  So on one hand we have prior jurisprudence (including that of SCOTUS) when it comes to age verification that says that the 5th circuit is wrong

  It absolutely does not. MM is lying to you and claiming that. Different thing.

• On the post: Justice Alito Won’t Block Texas From Enforcing Internet Age Verification Law

  

  Matt Bennett ( profile ), 02 May, 2024 @ 06:09am

  Mike also has two of the finest legal minds on the Internet to ask for help, Eric Goldman and Ken White.

  hahahahaha.....no

• On the post: Justice Alito Won’t Block Texas From Enforcing Internet Age Verification Law

  

  Matt Bennett ( profile ), 02 May, 2024 @ 06:06am

  That was some insane drug fueled cope. Yeah buddy, we're talking about porn. GTFO.

• On the post: Will Elon Sue? NBC News Finds, Yet Again, That ExTwitter Has ‘Verified’ Neo-Nazi Accounts, With Ads Appearing Next To Their Content

  

  Matt Bennett ( profile ), 17 Apr, 2024 @ 07:06pm

  blocking all

  checking?

• On the post: Judge Slams Ken Paxton’s Attack On Media Matters’ Free Speech Rights

  

  Matt Bennett ( profile ), 16 Apr, 2024 @ 08:23pm

  You are a liar

  You may recall that after fake free speech absolutist Elon Musk got all pissy at Media Matters’ use of its own free speech rights to point out the fact that they were able to find ads on ExTwitter from giant companies appearing next to the accounts of literal neo-Nazis

  They didn't "find them", they manufactured circumstance of their occurrence. And then much more importantly, legally, They lied about how that occurrence came about. You know all this and continue to lie about it, you partisan shithead. Arguably Musk could sue you for defamation, though I doubt he's heard of you. You are making material lies and there's clear malice. Damage would be a little challenging because I just don't think TD has any traffic anymore to speak of. This lawsuit is ongoing and has survived challenges to be dismissed. Shithead.

• On the post: FCC Outlaws Sleazy And Misleading Cable TV Fees

  

  Matt Bennett ( profile ), 22 Mar, 2024 @ 11:01am

  And if the FCC was actually trying to implement a law here,

  They are.

• On the post: 5th Circuit Is Gonna 5th Circus: Declares Age Verification Perfectly Fine Under The First Amendment

  

  Matt Bennett ( profile ), 11 Mar, 2024 @ 08:51pm

  He said "not how science is done". Except that, science is indeed done that way. Which part did I misread, exactly?

• On the post: 5th Circuit Is Gonna 5th Circus: Declares Age Verification Perfectly Fine Under The First Amendment

  

  Matt Bennett ( profile ), 11 Mar, 2024 @ 01:22pm

  ‘Not being given preferential treatment in the form of recommendations is the same as being silenced’, how very US conservative/republican of them.

  It's not that, either. It means they won't show up for any searches on the topic. ANY topic, really. It means that you'd have to search that EXACT name for it to show. It's a shadowban. And yes it's censorship and yes it would be very bad if it was done at WH demand, which it apparently was.

• On the post: 5th Circuit Is Gonna 5th Circus: Declares Age Verification Perfectly Fine Under The First Amendment

  

  Matt Bennett ( profile ), 11 Mar, 2024 @ 11:43am

  To be clear, Jim Jordan is absolutely right and Mike is full of shiit.

  Amazon was not reacting to the publication of an article.

  I never said that.

  Amazon was reacting to learning about the article pre-publication.

  Yeah, I know. This is just me paraphrasing a prior conversation. I'm aware that they were talking about an article soon to be published and never said otherwise. You're confused and barking up the wrong tree. The issue, and the thing Mike is lying about, is that that email was dated on the 12th. It doesn't say when they learned of the (impending) buzzfeed article but it was presumably just before that email was written, on the 12th. The book in question was (shadow)banned 3 days prior on the 9th. That's the "Enable DO NOT PROMOTE" bit at the end. That's why email is relevant, actually. The timing makes it clear that the book being banned had nothing to do with buzzfeed (it was presumably at WH request, as they had met earlier that day). But Mike used that email to pretend that they banned the book because of Buzzfeed when it actually shows that could NOT have been the reason. He's lying. Very much on purpose. And when challenged his only response was to suggest I couldn't read.

• On the post: Biden Admin Finally Points Out That The Record In The Murthy Case Is All Lies

  

  Matt Bennett ( profile ), 11 Mar, 2024 @ 10:54am

  WHERE? Where does it show the WH demanding content be banned?

  I linked directly to it, shitass.

  THEY DID NOT BAN ANYTHING on the 9th.

  Yeah, they did, that was the "policy change", ya dumb fuuck. EVERYONE ELSE UNDERSTANDS THAT. I can't believe you made being this stupid your job.

• On the post: Biden Admin Finally Points Out That The Record In The Murthy Case Is All Lies

  

  Matt Bennett ( profile ), 11 Mar, 2024 @ 06:32am

  the PDF you shared AT NO POINT shows the CDC asking anyone to ban anyone

  But it does show the fed gov (WH) asking content to be banned, which it then was. Which is the evidence you asked for. This is pathetic. You lost. Admit it. Now: Why did lie about the timing of when Amazon banned that book vs when they learned of Buzzfeed? Apparently you're STILL lying about it. But they banned it 3 days before that email, you lying, reneging turd.

• On the post: Biden Admin Finally Points Out That The Record In The Murthy Case Is All Lies

  

  Matt Bennett ( profile ), 08 Mar, 2024 @ 08:25pm

  Because your site is from 2005 (and now it's editing variations of your name, suspicious) you get the same comment twice:

  But, fine, if you have a citation to one of those “every other article” you’ve read about the case “written by actual lawyers” that presents the actual evidence of the CDC doing what you claim, I’ll accept that.

  Weasel words, MM. You're just asking me to go pdf hunting via a different method. But y'know what, this is the same article I linked too before (Jacob Sullum is not a lawyer. Other authors at Reason such as Volokh are, but they make more arguments, link to the docs less) https://reason.com/2023/09/11/the-5th-circuit-agrees-that-federal-officials-unconstitutionally-coerced-or-encouraged-online-censorship/ And near the end of that article is this link, which seems to match your request exactly: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.lawd.189520/gov.uscourts.lawd.189520.293.0_1.pdf#page=9 (there are plenty of others in the same document and linked to)

  But again, my offer stands. Prove me wrong on this.

  I would say I"m looking forward to my duly owed apology, but I have zero faith in you and am quite sure you will invent a bullshit excuse on why that doesn't count in some way.

  I ignored this because it’s not what we’re talking about and because I already responded to it when it first came up.

  No you didn't. Or if you did, it was long after I had stopped paying attention whichever post. You're free to link to whatever "response" you think you made here, of course. The question remains: Why did you lie about the dates?

• On the post: Biden Admin Finally Points Out That The Record In The Murthy Case Is All Lies

  

  Matt Bennett ( profile ), 08 Mar, 2024 @ 03:25pm

  Do you understand that it’s only perjury if it’s factually proven?

  No, actually. Particularly as far as the bar association is concerned. Again, ask Bill Clinton. You have a completely mooronic understanding here, and are trying to make that somehow my problem.

• On the post: Biden Admin Finally Points Out That The Record In The Murthy Case Is All Lies

  

  Matt Bennett ( profile ), 08 Mar, 2024 @ 01:48pm

  No, it doesn’t.

  Yes, it does

  Damages can be awarded if injury

  Those aren't "damages", I'm sorry, you're confused. Like, badly.

  What were you saying about knowing the law better than Mike again

  Pretty sure he would laugh at you actually

• On the post: The Net Neutrality Fight Will Soon Return, And The Bickering Will Be As Stupid As Ever

  

  Matt Bennett ( profile ), 29 Feb, 2024 @ 07:13pm

  I’m confident most here would see it as

  Yeah man, I think you guys are idiots, so.....

• On the post: Bill Ackman: Nazis On ExTwitter Are Just The Price Of Free Speech; But Marxist Theory Or Anti-Israel Claims On Campus Are Beyond The Pale

  

  Matt Bennett ( profile ), 13 Feb, 2024 @ 09:25pm

  ....ok

Next >>