Matt Bennett 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (2814) comment rss

  • On the post: Meta Following Elon Down The Road Of Making Verification An Upsell Is A Terrible Idea

    Matt Bennett ( profile ), 21 Feb, 2023 @ 02:53pm

    Matty, I suggest the following to make your life happier...
    1) Not gonna take life advice from someone using diminutives to make themselves feel more secure. 2) that would make YOU happy, but my happiness is not tied to that, k, thx.

  • On the post: Meta Following Elon Down The Road Of Making Verification An Upsell Is A Terrible Idea

    Matt Bennett ( profile ), 21 Feb, 2023 @ 02:49pm

    That isn’t how English works,
    Sure it is. Possibly you're referring to the perspective shifting, but that would be pedantic without point.

  • On the post: Meta Following Elon Down The Road Of Making Verification An Upsell Is A Terrible Idea

    Matt Bennett ( profile ), 21 Feb, 2023 @ 02:46pm

    Didn’t Twitter try that to spectacularly bad results?
    no, actually. Spoiler: Masnick shitting on an idea has basically no correlation with whether an idea is working.

  • On the post: Meta Following Elon Down The Road Of Making Verification An Upsell Is A Terrible Idea

    Matt Bennett ( profile ), 21 Feb, 2023 @ 02:44pm

    I just don't know how a bunch of barely functional moms-basement commies get to the point where they convinced themselves they are smarter than a guy who grew a half-dozen companies to multi-billion dollar valuations. Like, you know that makes no sense. You have to! C'mon. Who's making smarter business decisions? You or Musk? Be real.

  • On the post: Meta Following Elon Down The Road Of Making Verification An Upsell Is A Terrible Idea

    Matt Bennett ( profile ), 21 Feb, 2023 @ 02:37pm

    "I'm rubber you're glue" is not a very interesting comment, generally.

  • On the post: Twitter Is Correct To Move Away From SMS Two Factor Authentication, Though, There Are Much Better Ways To Do It

    Matt Bennett ( profile ), 21 Feb, 2023 @ 02:19pm

    ....like what, you think "low income" (you can just say "poor") people are tweeting from a desktop? You should feel dumb for saying that.

  • On the post: Twitter Is Correct To Move Away From SMS Two Factor Authentication, Though, There Are Much Better Ways To Do It

    Matt Bennett ( profile ), 21 Feb, 2023 @ 02:17pm

    Seriously tho, they have Obama phones. This is kinda like pretending that minorities can't get ID's for voting. It's weirdly low-key racist and also just isn't a thing.

  • On the post: Twitter Is Correct To Move Away From SMS Two Factor Authentication, Though, There Are Much Better Ways To Do It

    Matt Bennett ( profile ), 21 Feb, 2023 @ 02:06pm

    twitter doesn't need 2FA

    It's a platform for bitching about politics and spreading memes. It doesn't hold bank account information. Seriously, stop pretending this is all serious just so you have something to bitch about. Also, paid subscribers really does help for verification, because at least then you have their billing info.

  • On the post: Twitter Is Correct To Move Away From SMS Two Factor Authentication, Though, There Are Much Better Ways To Do It

    Matt Bennett ( profile ), 21 Feb, 2023 @ 02:00pm

    Not sure where you're getting "cry basby" from, but funnily enough that wasn't me. I love that people are impersonating me, and then being so even tempered and non-trolly about it. The impersonator isn't even wrong. fascinating.

  • On the post: Meta Following Elon Down The Road Of Making Verification An Upsell Is A Terrible Idea

    Matt Bennett ( profile ), 21 Feb, 2023 @ 01:29pm

    Holy crap, you just can't help yourself.

    Just take a week off from writing about Musk, maybe social media in general. Zuckerberg is a loon who actually "lucked" into having a successful company (which is funny cuz your readership thinks that's true of Musk but he would have had to been lucky at least 5x now...) and kinda hasn't done anything smart with it since beyond just being the biggest SM network. But still subscription can work cuz at least then you're the customer not the product and subscription as verification can work just fine .... and no, some people using a rushed start to troll for a week or two and you and some other shitheels mocking the idea doesn't mean it's a bad idea at all. (implementation is always the hardest step). It's fine, at least to try. If it doesn't work, that's fine too, as long as they're not as costly as "metaverse". This isn't a story about Musk, at all, and yet you still have to make it about Musk, cuz you're fucking deranged about him. Fuck, if you didn't hat Musk so much you might be talking about how it's a good idea, Twitter rocky start or no. That's how bad your MDS is.

  • On the post: Next Week, The Supreme Court Could Destroy Everything Good About The Internet

    Matt Bennett ( profile ), 21 Feb, 2023 @ 07:48am

    Tell me you don't understand the difference between the 1A and libel law, or for that matter, any of this at all without telling me you're just a fucking idiot. Oh wait, you did.

  • On the post: Next Week, The Supreme Court Could Destroy Everything Good About The Internet

    Matt Bennett ( profile ), 19 Feb, 2023 @ 08:18pm

    All I read here is that you don't understand either the 1st amendment, nor libel law, at all. Like, very much many things that are protected by the 1st ammendment, (i.e. nearly everything) is still subject to libel law. Which is a civil, not criminal proceeding, instituted by private parties, not the government. Help me help you. Which part do you not get, here?

  • On the post: Next Week, The Supreme Court Could Destroy Everything Good About The Internet

    Matt Bennett ( profile ), 19 Feb, 2023 @ 08:13pm

    Y'all keep on thinking the fact you're dumb and can't draw parallels that make any sense is my responsibility and frankly I'm not having it.

  • On the post: Next Week, The Supreme Court Could Destroy Everything Good About The Internet

    Matt Bennett ( profile ), 17 Feb, 2023 @ 03:41pm

    Re: Matthew M Bennett - rebuttal
    Well THAT sure encourages me to read more.
    So, if I want to talk about the best way to caramelize meat and why the Maillard reaction is a wonderful culinary delight on a vegan web page, I shouldn’t have that comment removed?
    Since you don't read so good, what I was saying is that the vegan page should be free to remove that comment but that doing so now makes them liable for that. What are the libel liabilities of that? Basically nothing, so your point is moot. Not even that, but something like "no animal based culinary discussion allowed" is a pretty easy to enforce brightline rule similar to removing porn. So it's double not an issue. Now, suggesting that a medical expert is peddling "misinformation"? Completely different. For one thing I don't think that's a good social policy (Bhattacharya turned out to be right about a great deal) but also labeling him "misinformation" without real cause probably should be actionable. I kinda stopped reading there, you seem to be making overwrought arguments based on a flawed premise and understanding and I'm just not that interested in what you have to say.

  • On the post: Next Week, The Supreme Court Could Destroy Everything Good About The Internet

    Matt Bennett ( profile ), 17 Feb, 2023 @ 03:31pm

    If I deleted a post from an imageboard because it broke a rule against anti-queer speech, that deletion shouldn’t....ake me liable
    It probably should, tho, unless you can come up with a very brightline and unambiguous rule about when such images are removed. Cuz at that the point the speech is yours, not the posters as you have exhibited editorial control. Not exactly sure how libel would apply in that context, but if it could, it should. In reality a great deal of such actions don't have a libel liability even without 230.
    The whole reason 230 exists
    Section 230 exists as an accident. Basically the entire rest of the law was thrown out except for that one bit. Now, I actually agree that it should exist as part of case law, if the owner of a platform didn't post the speech it's not their speech and they shouldn't be laible for it. Not sure the same rules exist for newspaper op-eds, but they should.
    Moderation is, in and of itself, a form of speech/expression.
    Well, yes, that's my point. (really glad you didn't say "moderation is free speech", cuz when used by Masnick, not usually the way he means it at all) You are free to make that speech but then you are responsible for the consequences of that speech, because the less "hands off" you are the more it's your speech and not the users. Now in a lot of cases the consequences should be and are nothing. But if your "moderation speech" is pretending that an actual medical expert or the NY Post are lying when neither is lying nor likely to be lying, there probably should be some consequences to that, or at least the possibility. Currently there is none and it allows platform operators to essentially project their viewpoint as fact.

  • On the post: Next Week, The Supreme Court Could Destroy Everything Good About The Internet

    Matt Bennett ( profile ), 17 Feb, 2023 @ 03:16pm

    Should every family that has lost a loved one be able to sue the gun manufacture of the gun that was used to kill them?
    Those are not even related subjects and you're a fucking moron for thinking they are.

  • On the post: Next Week, The Supreme Court Could Destroy Everything Good About The Internet

    Matt Bennett ( profile ), 17 Feb, 2023 @ 02:18pm

    I like section 230 just fine

    I just want everyone to admit overly aggressive "moderation" (censorship) particularly when it bans (or suppresses) entire categories of thought is most definitely "editorializing" and therefore makes you responsible for that speech. (not an easy line to draw, so basically I think if you're doing anything beyond banning porn and gore you're editorializing") Like you can do that, it's legal, but now you're effectively responsible for that speech, cuz your whole viewpoint is declaring a view (such as all vaccines work all the time so Trust The Science) that make not actually be true. Jay Bhattacharya should be able to sue FB and Twitter for libel is what I'm saying.

  • On the post: AT&T ‘Unlimited’ Customers Still Awaiting Their $12 Payout More Than A Decade After Being Throttled And Lied To

    Matt Bennett ( profile ), 16 Feb, 2023 @ 10:30pm

    AT& is evil

    But net neutrality is bullshit wishing for government intervention that will cause a WHOLE lot more harm than good. Say it with me: Government intervention rarely, if ever, makes things better. Regular anti-fraud and false advertising laws are plenty to tell AT&T go straight -- if they were applied fully, which they aren't, of course. I'm one of those people owed $12, btw. (actually I think they did take it off my bill)

  • On the post: Stifling Free Speech Is Now A Core Plank Of The Republican Platform

    Matt Bennett ( profile ), 16 Feb, 2023 @ 10:26pm

    Holy fuck literally none of that is true. Amazing. What lies do you tell you yourselves?!?

  • On the post: Stifling Free Speech Is Now A Core Plank Of The Republican Platform

    Matt Bennett ( profile ), 16 Feb, 2023 @ 10:24pm

    The irony in this. 1) Animal farm is making fun of communists. 2) Yeah, same rules for everyone is literally what the republcian is asking for here, you retard.

Next >>