Space5000 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (91)

• On the post: The ‘Culture Of Free Speech’ Includes Criticism Of Others’ Speech; Get Over It

  

  Space5000 ( profile ), 22 Mar, 2022 @ 07:39pm

  "I’m not one of them. That said: If you say something stupid, you’re going to face consequences for it, and that is your fault. But someone going too far with the consequences they visit upon you is their fault. Say a racial slur and you deserve to be called a racist, not to be put in the hospital for it." Technically speaking, even calling out something actually stupid is still a choice, but if we want to ignore that kind of stuff and only argue that fault is toward more questionable things, then sure. For that, what is "stupid" sometimes gets mixed. Some very smart things can be considered "stupid" by emotional freaks who don't accept science and physiology for example. "There is no “right to be on Twitter”. Usage of Twitter is a privilege⁠—one that can be revoked at any time for damn near any reason." Well when I was calling out "cancel culture", I was looking at that on the moral ethical side. Kinda similar to how someone showing no ethical respect to "free speech" by wanting the person for it banned off YouTube for having a controversial, but legally allowed opinion. It's even into common sense as many people has debated when something is "too far" within stuff like that if I remembered right. "Here’s my Hot Take™ about digging up past statements: I generally don’t give a shit. Whether what someone said in the past is taken seriously enough to warrant “cancellation” depends on a totality of circumstances, including any genuine personal growth the person who said those things has gone through since saying those things. A Christian in favor of gay rights would likely be pilloried for past anti-gay comments, but if they’re genuine in their change of heart and remorseful for their anti-gay past, it won’t be that much of a problem in the long term. If you said some stupid shit in the past, the best thing you can do is come clean about it, apologize for it, acknowledge why the thing you said was stupid, and acknowledge any actions you’ve taken to prevent yourself from saying (or believing or acting on) that stupid shit you said. And no, not everyone will accept your apology even if you’re wholly sincere about your change in mindset and actions. They’re not required to accept it and you’re not entitled to their accepting it." Well that's your line, as you said I think. From my line I guess, I was arguing that there was a line even though it's likely different than a lot of other people here. I think digging up a person's past over a joke made 20 years ago when the person was a comedian, and firing the person for it after, is morally (but not legally) wrong. I don't even think the person even has to be pressured to having to make a whole public apology for it especially since some public apologies usually makes it worse. So my moral argument, for this one example, is that the person should not have been fired for it and that whoever is authorized to control the firing thing, should of just ignored those people trying to get the person fired. In one thing, I advocate the arguable idea that it's wrong to cancel a person away from a lawful job who changed for the good (but recent very serious past maybe should sometimes require proof of good change), and many people who calls out "cancel culture" has a somewhat similar mindset (with their own lines, I guess). I say cancel culture exist in terms of that one behavior I mentioned already, and I feel like many of those who say it doesn't exist and broadly replaces cancel culture with "consequences" might be showing that they have a problem with people who morally objects to certain stuff, as if we shouldn't call those certain things out with less discriminatory intention. If you're not exactly one of those people, then great, but either way I've noticed a specific pattern of "cancel culture" as I call it, and also noticed a lot of people are noticing a weird unusual pattern of it too, and I think it may be good to notice it. I apoligize for getting something wrong here.

• On the post: The ‘Culture Of Free Speech’ Includes Criticism Of Others’ Speech; Get Over It

  

  Space5000 ( profile ), 22 Mar, 2022 @ 06:20pm

  I'm not being a coward, when I say specific, I just mean "speech that isn't breaking the law". If you want examples, then fine: "I vote for Trump." Lawful "I vote for Biden." Lawful Someone saying the same thing but also trying to get someone to illegally break into certain facilities? Unlawful. I literally find it dumb to even bring this up just because I said "lawful political speech" (or whatever it was) in an example of something. There is no hidden specific political one-sided thing I have in it except for the fact that I don't want to broadly defend (out of fear of being responsible, in general, for it) certain speech.

• On the post: The ‘Culture Of Free Speech’ Includes Criticism Of Others’ Speech; Get Over It

  

  Space5000 ( profile ), 22 Mar, 2022 @ 06:12pm

  If by accountable, you mean someone disagreeing with you, then sure I guess, but remember you can disagree with them too.

• On the post: The ‘Culture Of Free Speech’ Includes Criticism Of Others’ Speech; Get Over It

  

  Space5000 ( profile ), 22 Mar, 2022 @ 06:09pm

  "What a person says or does to get “cancelled” is their responsibility. What other people do in reaction to that aforementioned person is the responsibility of those other people." The point I'm trying to say is that for example, it's a choice to dig up certain stuff, and it's a choice to try to get the person fired for it, and it's a choice to fire the person for it. <When it comes to certain things. Some people use "consequences" like there is no fault in it. "We can have discussions about whether certain outcomes of what one might call “counter-speech” are acceptable. But I refuse to debate whether people can engage in counter-speech even if/when some people take it too far." Then why did you argue that right to be on Twitter being debatable thing? Maybe we both are not on the same page? The point I made about cancel culture, is the idea of trying to get something off certain platforms in many specific cases. That's it. It doesn't matter if they never had the 'right' to it in the first place. It's the act of trying to take away certain stuff that may or may not have build up a person's life. Like for example, digging up a person's past for making an offensive joke and then trying to get the person off a lawful platform because of it, even through legal means. That, alone, is a real thing, and that's what some people are trying to bring up.

• On the post: The ‘Culture Of Free Speech’ Includes Criticism Of Others’ Speech; Get Over It

  

  Space5000 ( profile ), 22 Mar, 2022 @ 06:00pm

  Lawful political opinion; speech that is political, without saying something that would break the law while being political. Example of unlawful speech: Someone saying they vote for Trump, while also inciting violence. I say "lawful" a lot because I don't want to broadly defend certain speech. I'm usually paranoid about it.

• On the post: The ‘Culture Of Free Speech’ Includes Criticism Of Others’ Speech; Get Over It

  

  Space5000 ( profile ), 22 Mar, 2022 @ 05:25pm

  So you're saying that the person should be fired for making a joke, 30 years ago when the person doesn't even do that anymore? It makes sense when you're talking about someone being very offensive right in the job, but it becomes debatable to dig up a person's past that long ago, and then firing the person for it in an average job.

• On the post: The ‘Culture Of Free Speech’ Includes Criticism Of Others’ Speech; Get Over It

  

  Space5000 ( profile ), 22 Mar, 2022 @ 05:21pm

  Despite my mistake of forgetting "political", I meant political messages where it's said without breaking the law. I can't get anymore specific than that.

• On the post: The ‘Culture Of Free Speech’ Includes Criticism Of Others’ Speech; Get Over It

  

  Space5000 ( profile ), 22 Mar, 2022 @ 04:51pm

  "No, it isn’t. You don’t lose the ability to speak when you’re shouted down⁠—you lose only the ability to speak at that moment, in that space, in front of those people. You can find a different venue with a different audience and say the same shit you were going to say." Doesn't the same happen whenever a government violates the first amendment at least 99% of the time? I mean, if I was stopped from protesting on the public street where it was protected legally, by government, I could always say my protected speech to a new group of people else-where. Pretty sure being silenced just means being prohibited from being able to have a say in many areas. It's preventing the word from being spread in the least.

• On the post: The ‘Culture Of Free Speech’ Includes Criticism Of Others’ Speech; Get Over It

  

  Space5000 ( profile ), 22 Mar, 2022 @ 04:41pm

  I'm not arguing that existing on Twitter is a human right. I'm saying it's still debatable on a different but still moral level. Calling debatable things "consequences" doesn't change the fact that it's debatable. Firing someone for a 30-year old joke is very debatable, just as much as it's debatable for someone posting an very offensive lawful comment in the first place. Such things are a form of cancel culture, and trying to mask it as something as if it's not the other people's fault doesn't change that it's a form of cancel culture which is sometimes debatable. I have a bad feeling that you're one of those people who argues that people shouldn't debate these things that happened just because they are considered "consequences" by some.

• On the post: The ‘Culture Of Free Speech’ Includes Criticism Of Others’ Speech; Get Over It

  

  Space5000 ( profile ), 22 Mar, 2022 @ 04:36pm

  Calling it "consequences" doesn't make it right. It's still debatable, morally speaking. Firing someone from their lawful job for a 30 year old joke they made, is VERY debatable, and calling it "consequences" doesn't justify such ridiculous thing. I got a feeling that some people are arguing that they can't be criticized whenever they call their crap "consequences", which in some cases turns hypocritical too.

• On the post: The ‘Culture Of Free Speech’ Includes Criticism Of Others’ Speech; Get Over It

  

  Space5000 ( profile ), 22 Mar, 2022 @ 12:48am

  I mean speech that is lawful. Some speech isn't.

• On the post: The ‘Culture Of Free Speech’ Includes Criticism Of Others’ Speech; Get Over It

  

  Space5000 ( profile ), 22 Mar, 2022 @ 12:46am

  Cancel culture I think is the idea of making sure a person doesn't have a platform or certain platforms anymore, legal or not. Examples of it happening if I remembered right: Roseanne losing her job because of a racist Twitter tweet. James Gunn being fired for pedophile jokes (though this was taken care of for the better later than that) happening years ago before he was fired. This thing. https://www.cbssports.com/olympics/news/2021-tokyo-olympics-opening-ceremony-director-fired-over-holocaust-joke/ An expert who had a controversial opinion about a very sensitive topic, got fired due to what is likely emotional backlash. Something about stigma and pedophiles. In a less direct example, there is ideas of certain controversial people never coming back and having a platform even after they changed for the good. I've seen some comments here and there expressing that.

• On the post: The ‘Culture Of Free Speech’ Includes Criticism Of Others’ Speech; Get Over It

  

  Space5000 ( profile ), 21 Mar, 2022 @ 03:45pm

  Oops

  I should point out that sometimes firing from certain someone can be justified. By job, I mean a lawful one too. I was mainly trying to argue that sometimes certain cases of what is maybe cancel culture can sometimes be debatable. If someone is still clearly a threat, like recent horrible things showing a risk at being at certain jobs for example, then I can see it being justified firing the person for safety.

• On the post: The ‘Culture Of Free Speech’ Includes Criticism Of Others’ Speech; Get Over It

  

  Space5000 ( profile ), 21 Mar, 2022 @ 03:41pm

  Cancel Culture Is Very Real

  I don't think a lot of people view cancel culture as violation of free speech, but rather, certain objectionable actions regardless of action being legal or not. So-called certain "consequences" are morally debatable, even if it was legal to do so and I think a lot of the criticism of it was more akin to that. For example maybe, someone speaks a lawful political opinion, then due to mental mobs, the person gets fired from their job. This may be legal, assuming it was, but it's still an example of cancel culture. Some people were even harassed and doxxed for being exposed for a past that is no longer describes the person, which also exists and I've seen it a lot. There is definitely a disturbing pattern of people trying to get people off public existence, for innocent and/or old past poor choices, and there is nothing wrong with being concerned about a lot of that. Some might argue that this kind of "cancel culture" always existed for so long, but that doesn't change the concern and even then I feel like it was way more on the rise than it was before. I agree that lawfully protected speech does not stop others from their lawfully protected speech regarding it though.

• On the post: Video Game History Foundation: Nintendo Actions 'Actively Destructive To Video Game History'

  

  Space5000 ( profile ), 22 Feb, 2022 @ 10:13pm

  Re: Section 108

  Disclaimer, I didn't fully read the document and just found it. It's probably not fully about revising it.

• On the post: Video Game History Foundation: Nintendo Actions 'Actively Destructive To Video Game History'

  

  Space5000 ( profile ), 22 Feb, 2022 @ 10:05pm

  Section 108

  I am curious if Section 108 of the Copyright law actually can save those classic Nintendo games? Though I'm hoping it allows the same for infringing Nintendo game copies too, just in case that's generally the only thing left when it comes to old Nintendo games itself. I partly say this because I found this strange document about revising 108: https://www.copyright.gov/policy/section108/discussion-document.pdf (look at page 2 where they talk about c.). Though I'm probably misreading it.

  I also heard a case that contract law prevented some kind of public domain information from being reproduced, which is a big yikes in general. https://www.rcfp.org/license-can-prohibit-reproduction-public-domain-data/

• On the post: Nintendo Is Beginning To Look Like The Disney Of The Video Game Industry

  

  Space5000 ( profile ), 18 Feb, 2022 @ 05:21pm

  Copyright Expanding?

  If Nintendo tried to expand the copyright extension, then I think they would truly be the Disney of video gaming. It's likely the one thing left keeping them away from truly being such a thing, and I wouldn't be surprised if they tried to do such an awful thing.

• On the post: Yes, It Really Was Nintendo That Slammed GilvaSunner YouTube Channel With Copyright Strikes

  

  Space5000 ( profile ), 10 Feb, 2022 @ 05:34pm

  Well, I guess it's Nintendo then likely.
  I probably said this at least once before, I wouldn't be very surprised if Nintendo tried to extend Copyright.

• On the post: GilvaSunner YouTube Channel Shuts Down Due To Copyright Strikes From Nintendo; Pokemon Releases Music

  

  Space5000 ( profile ), 04 Feb, 2022 @ 08:39pm

  Possible Impersonator

  As someone already said on here, there is a big chance that it may not have been actual Nintendo doing this to him. Of course Nintendo does usually like to be Nintendo, but I still think it's best to properly update this article about that Twitter thread.

  https://twitter.com/SolScribbles/status/1489417889232916480

• On the post: It's Great That Winnie The Pooh Is In The Public Domain; But He Should Have Been Free In 1982 (Or Earlier)

  

  Space5000 ( profile ), 06 Jan, 2022 @ 03:06pm

  One Hope I Wondered...

  It's very obvious that many works being stuck under copyright for over 60 years is bad, as it clearly damages the purpose of Copyright. I hate that it feels so "hard" for laws around the world to start fixing it by <i>reducing</i> it's term back down, even by just 10 years (both after death and fixed years).

  Reducing it would automatically generate more amazing works into public domain, but such move to reduce the term would likely receive backlashes, usually more likely, by many corporations, which depends how far it's reduced. Sadly the copyright law rulers would likely pander to them, which is the problem here I think.

  I feel that if there were a lot of protest around it (including physical protests) calling out the extensions with criticism by properly explaining that current copyright is unconstitutional, with good evidence, and properly pressure congress to not listen to corporations fighting against that fact and reducing copyright term, then maybe the chance of reducing copyright would be higher.

Next >>