Matt Bennett 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (2814)

• 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 @ 07:45pm

  a Christian is as capable of blowing people up as a Muslim or an atheist.

  Statistically they don't, tho. That one OKlahoma bombing probably throws off the numbers a lot, cuz they got a lot of people (including kids), but still, Statistically they don't, tho. And Stephen, seriously, statistics can't be racist, so don't even bother. You said a really stupid thing, suck it up.

• 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 @ 06:11pm

  If someone who identifies as a neo-Nazi (or could reasonably be identified as such) believes in the same general tenets as the original Nazis, does it really matter if the “neo” prefix is attached to the descriptor?

  Yes, incredibly. Because everyone understands "neo-nazi" is a small and specific thing. Meanwhile you nitwits are pretending half the country are literal actual nazis, which lol, no they aren't. So yeah, words are important.

• On the post: Media Matters’ Very Strong Response To Elon Musk’s Very Dumb Lawsuit

  

  Matt Bennett ( profile ), 13 Feb, 2024 @ 05:54pm

  If you try to tell me "nitwit" is a racial slur of some kind I am gonna just laugh at you for all time.

• On the post: Media Matters’ Very Strong Response To Elon Musk’s Very Dumb Lawsuit

  

  Matt Bennett ( profile ), 12 Feb, 2024 @ 02:52pm

  “Desperate” would suggest that making Musk look stupid is difficult or unlikely.

  You guys seem to have this fiction that people can just "luck into" being the richest guy on earth and successfully growing like...a dozen companies? You have your excuses for each one. I think this has a lot more to do with the lies you tell yourselves than anything involving Musk.

• On the post: Free Speech Absolutist Elon Musk Very Mad At Disney For Its Speech, Funds At Least One SLAPP Suit

  

  Matt Bennett ( profile ), 09 Feb, 2024 @ 05:45pm

  Slander is spoken. In print, it’s libel.

  Yay, you made a distinction with zero difference.

• On the post: Congressional Witness Claims ChatGPT Won’t Write Poems Praising Jim Jordan; Ranking Member Submits A Bunch Of ChatGPT-Authored Poems Praising Jim Jordan

  

  Matt Bennett ( profile ), 08 Feb, 2024 @ 10:36am

  That’s all there is to this – an email that suggest Amazon was more concerned about the Buzzfeed article than governmental coercion

  Completely incorrect. At that point, they had already implemented the shadowban 3 days earlier. The same day as meeting with the White House, after talking to them for a week. So kinda the opposite of that. Dude, I have decided you are not smart enough to talk to, less for this and more for the library thing.

• On the post: Congressional Witness Claims ChatGPT Won’t Write Poems Praising Jim Jordan; Ranking Member Submits A Bunch Of ChatGPT-Authored Poems Praising Jim Jordan

  

  Matt Bennett ( profile ), 07 Feb, 2024 @ 08:47pm

  Pretty sure libraries shut down all the time for various reasons. As for "removing books", I assume you mean from public libraries. The content of public libraries is subject to the political process, your neighbors may well think the library you BOTH pay for should carry different books than you do.

  or today’s article of literally burning books?

  A candidate, not a serving offial, and she was burning books she presumably owned. (She said they were "from the library" I have no idea how literal that is, she could be charged with theft or vandalism, but it seems much more likely she just bought the same books the library had) Thing is, None of these things violates the 1A. Telling a private bookseller what books they may carry certainly does.

  For fucks sake man, fucking google it!

  See, the thing is that I didn't have to and I was pointing out any such characterization was bullcrap. You guys on the other hand were throwing shade on a very real story you just wanted to pretend was not.

• On the post: Congressional Witness Claims ChatGPT Won’t Write Poems Praising Jim Jordan; Ranking Member Submits A Bunch Of ChatGPT-Authored Poems Praising Jim Jordan

  

  Matt Bennett ( profile ), 07 Feb, 2024 @ 04:35pm

  All I can say is that if I had an email with a government representative outright asking for the removal of books by a private entity, I’d be including the full text of that email front and center in the article, with blaring klaxons saying “HERE IT IS FOLKS! RIGHT HERE! HERE’S THE CENSORSHIP!”.

  They do, in fact, do that. https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/other/amazon-censored-covid-19-vaccine-books-after-feeling-pressure-from-biden-white-house-docs/ar-BB1hPSw0#

• On the post: I Remain Confused By The Ruling On Elon Musk’s Compensation Package

  

  Matt Bennett ( profile ), 06 Feb, 2024 @ 12:15am

  Haven’t House Republicans refused to consider any measure

  Are you high? Trump had the border largely solved. Biden CHOOSE to reverse all those policies. There's nothing that any "border deal" will fix, the core problem is that Biden is ignoring the law, as written, no new law, no new funding, can change that. The ONLY purpose to such "border deals" is to blame GOP for not signing them, when nothing will change if they are signed. (But money will be spent!)

  You kinda do, though. Undocumented immigrants can’t vote

  1. THere children can.
  2. That's assuming no steps are taken to issue them state IDs (like, EVERY blue state), remove voter ID requirements, etc.

  Yeah, man, democrats TOTALLY want illegals to vote (they count to census regardless) and their children will. Stop calling us racist for you doing what you're saying you're doing. It's so stupid.

  actually do anything meaningful about the border crisis.

  Trump did something about the border crisis (which was like 1/10th as much a "crisis" when he was in charge) you called him racist, incessantly, remember?

  I don’t see you disproving the facts presented in that article.

  THERE WERE NO "FACTS" TO "disprove" YOU MORON

  Fam, I’ve heard about Soros conspiracy theories for about that long, and one of the first things I learned about Soros is that he’s Jewish. You’re asking me to believe that up until a few months ago, you had no idea that he was Jewish d

  Years ago, not months, and buddy, exactly my point, you retards obsessedd with race and we aren't. We hate Soros cuz he supports AGs that refuse to prosecute crimes, mostly.

  his Jewish-ness being one of the primary reasons for all the conspiracy theories surrounding his wealth and his political activity.

  I don't know what you don't get but THIS ISN'T A THING, IT'S JUST SOMETHING LEFTISTS REALLY WANT TO BE A THING. YOU REALLY WANT US TO HATE HIM CUZ HE'S JEWISH AND NOT CUZ HE'S EVIL AND DESTROYING SOCIETY. But the fact is he's evil and destroying society, and I first knew of him as "Greek". I support Israel 1000x more than you, and no, not cuz I randomly hate Palestinians for some reason. You and everyone you know is waaaaaayyyy more anti-semitc than me, you stupid fuck. You sound fucking ridiculous, pretending that biggest reason we hate Soros is cuz he's Jewish. That is something made up by you wokies, for wokies. If Soros was Dutch descended South-African you'd pretend I was anti-african. YOU'RE JUST A RACE BAITING SHITHEAD.

• On the post: Court: No, You Can’t Sue Facebook Claiming It Takes Down More Pro-Palestinian Speech Than Pro-Israel Speech

  

  Matt Bennett ( profile ), 02 Feb, 2024 @ 08:53pm

  Stories about it daily in the news sources you pay attention to does not mean that it is common.

  Yeah, no, it's not sensorial coverage, I know of like a dozen cases just in my local area.

  And that’s according to Newsweek, a publication owned by a right wing nonsense peddler

  1) Pretending that Newsweek is "rightwing" is just about the most shitlib comment ever. 2) The % isn't very important at all (I actually believe like %1.4-2%, sounds right, THAT"S A LOT) the entire problem is that males outclass females by enough of a margin that those 1% just break the whole system, winning a significant % of the of the medals and championships. Any men participating in women's sports breaks it, that's the whole thing. Meaning, any argument based around % participating is just irrelevant. How many AIs would you allow in a chess league? Zero, that's how many.

• On the post: Court: No, You Can’t Sue Facebook Claiming It Takes Down More Pro-Palestinian Speech Than Pro-Israel Speech

  

  Matt Bennett ( profile ), 02 Feb, 2024 @ 12:15am

  There are only two reason for misgendering or deadnaming someone,

  Alternatively, that just isn't a thing. Ellen's Paige given name is Ellen Paige, it's a name she still receives royalties under, and she is a biological female who has undergone procedures to superficially appear male. I'll agree it would be more politie to pretend with her that she's male, and to use a new made up name. But those aren't the facts the of the matter. The facts can never be hate speech.

• On the post: Data From 4.6 Million Stops Show California Law Enforcement Routinely Engages In Biased Policing

  

  Matt Bennett ( profile ), 22 Jan, 2024 @ 10:38pm

  You didn't compare with conviction rates.

  I.e. how often various crimes (or just infractions) were actually committed. Not that conviction rates are unbiased either (not even alleging they are) but it's the the closest proxy you have to how much the accused were actually doing what they were accused of. I.e., there was nothing racists about pulling them over. And I guarantee you if you factor that in things look waaaaayyyy more reasonable, cuz lol, what do you know, different demographics DO commit crimes (and simple traffic infractions) at different rates and if justice were blind it would actually be super fucked up and wrong if everyone was pulled over at the exact same rate. Maybe the pull over rate is STILL racist considering that. Hell, maybe it's racist against whites. No idea, but you've made no attempt to examine it. And about a dozen dozen of you will call me racist for pointing this out but facts can't be racist, and you're racist for trying to skew things racially in ways they should not be.

• On the post: ‘Free Speech Absolutist’ Elon Musk Is Also ‘Libel Tourist, Vexatious SLAPPer’ Elon Musk

  

  Matt Bennett ( profile ), 12 Dec, 2023 @ 10:09am

  No, I do not get that. I know the elements of defamation

  Do you? I have now read the entire 15 page document, and nearly the whole thing describes those elements point by point, as well as the "Second Cause of Action" you so scornfully cited. Falsehood, malice, it's all there.

  We idiots

  You are either an idiot or lying. The Complaint alleges and describes textbook defamation in great detail and looks for redress for that. You are either an idiot or lying. Choose one.

• On the post: Even If You Hate Both AI And Section 230, You Should Be Concerned About The Hawley/Blumenthal Bill To Remove 230 Protections From AI

  

  Matt Bennett ( profile ), 08 Dec, 2023 @ 01:06pm

  Literally the ENTIRE POINT OF THE LAW is to “shield editorial decisions” if those editorial decisions are about 3rd party content.

  Incorrect. It's to shield them from liability when they are merely hosting 3rd party content, and are not the publisher. I.e. making editorial decisions, because that's what a publisher is. But go ahead, tell me how Schenk was about defamation again. You're a fucking idiot who can't even read a court case.

• On the post: Supporting Free Speech Means Supporting Victims Of SLAPP Suits, Even If You Disagree With The Speakers

  

  Matt Bennett ( profile ), 08 Dec, 2023 @ 12:47pm

  Moderation doesn’t rely on the power of the state,

  For the 27th time, you are completely wrong about what the word "censorship" means. Nothing about it requires the use of state power, it need not be total throughout all of society, it can be in just one place, and yes, nearly all moderation is censorship. (you could argue Community Notes is "moderation" but it's not censorship because it doesn't silence the original speech, as a counter example) The 1A prohibits censorship by the government. That means censorship by private parties is (usually) legal, but nothing about that means it's only censorship if it's done by the government, and if you are this easily confused about that distinction you're an idiot. You are either an idiot or lying, on purpose. Pick one.

• On the post: Even If You Hate Both AI And Section 230, You Should Be Concerned About The Hawley/Blumenthal Bill To Remove 230 Protections From AI

  

  Matt Bennett ( profile ), 06 Dec, 2023 @ 03:48pm

  Have you ever actually read section 230? [Then proceeds to quote sections that don't mention defamation, at all]

  Yes, yes, I have, actually. You realize none of those exceptions are defamation? They are in fact, basically everything BUT defamation. That's the main thing it's shielding you over.

  as defamation is illegal under state laws

  Well there's your problem, you just don't understand what "defamation" is or how the law works. Because no, it is not "illegal", actually. It is something that you can be liable for, which is COMPLETELY different. There is no law saying "you shall not defame anyone". What there is is a lot of rules, a lot of case law and precedent, that establish when one person can sue another for damages. So I find it really funny that you lecture me about reading the thing but then don't understand any of it. But lol, no, defamation is neither illegal nor criminal, and none of the exceptions apply (you also really wanted section 1 not section 3, section 3 is actually saying state law can't override this). Section 230 is primarily about defamation. There's probably other things but that's majority of what doesn't meet the exemptions.

• On the post: Musk’s Faulty Vision Of ‘Free Speech’ Is Driving Speech Off ExTwitter

  

  Matt Bennett ( profile ), 30 Nov, 2023 @ 12:39am

  So? So the fuck what?!? All sorts of judgements of violations between private parties, damages, and other tort laws are enforced by government. Fucking NDAs are enforced by courts and cops. NDAs have nothing to do with the 1A. This is fucking kindergarten reasoning at work, damn.

• On the post: Congrats To Elon Musk: I Didn’t Think You Had It In You To File A Lawsuit This Stupid. But, You Crazy Bastard, You Did It!

  

  Matt Bennett ( profile ), 22 Nov, 2023 @ 10:27am

  Show me where Media Matters lied, lied with purpose, and lied with actual malice towards Elon Musk.

  They edited "screenshots" (they were not that) to show ads besides various hateful comments. You don't need malice btw (severe negligence will do) but it's clearly there. Media Matters is a far-left organization and the Left these days (Like Masnick) hate free speech. They lied very straight forwardedly and tried to "cancel" X over it (semi-successfully). This isn't hard. Go back to pretending any attempt to remove porn from school libraries is an attack on The Gays.

• On the post: Congrats To Elon Musk: I Didn’t Think You Had It In You To File A Lawsuit This Stupid. But, You Crazy Bastard, You Did It!

  

  Matt Bennett ( profile ), 22 Nov, 2023 @ 10:22am

  Are you suggesting that TD would waste their time telling Musk’s lawyers how batshit bonkers the suit is?

  I would suggest that TD writers waste their time, generally. Masnick routinely tells Musk how to make Money, for instance.

• On the post: ‘Free Speech Absolutist’ Elon Musk Promises To Sue Media Matters To Silence Their Speech

  

  Matt Bennett ( profile ), 20 Nov, 2023 @ 01:17pm

  Sorry that you don't know how defamation works

  ...as you misunderstand most law, apparently. Media Matters is lying, fairly straight forwardedly. The lies have real material costs. Therefore they are being sued. This is literally what defamation suits are for and how they are supposed to work. The only thing that's different here is that you happen to REALLY hate the claimant and like the defendant (cuz you're a blatantly partisan hack)

Next >>