sumgai 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (1098)

• On the post: Law Firm Hoping To Add Legal Losses To Plaintiffs' Gambling Losses By Suing Google, Apple Over Casino Apps

  

  sumgai ( profile ), 29 Mar, 2021 @ 02:26pm

  Re:

  In addition to the gentle advice from the bench about seeking counseling, I'd opt for the judge to hand out sanctions to the lawyers for not advising the clients that this was a non-starter in the first place. Sanction #1 would be to return all fees, including "expenses" to the client(s). Sanction #2 would be to pay court costs for the time it has wasted on this malarkey. Weirdly, Sanction #3 would not be to attend an Ethics class, but to teach such a class... to non-lawyers as well as lawyers. That way, the class attendees each grade the lawyer on presentation as well as the material, and the judge gets a Reader's Digest version of those "report cards". That might smarten up some of these yahoos, but only time would tell if I'm heading in the right direction on this particular train of thought.....

• On the post: Law Firm Hoping To Add Legal Losses To Plaintiffs' Gambling Losses By Suing Google, Apple Over Casino Apps

  

  sumgai ( profile ), 29 Mar, 2021 @ 11:18am

  ... the plaintiffs haven't lost hundreds of thousands of dollars gambling at this point, so they likely haven't destroyed anyone's lives at this point...

  It's a matter of perspective, attempting to assign where, and how much, destruction occurs. I'd hazard a guess that these suits are not being "sponsored" by the attorneys, that the plaintiffs are indeed ponying up considerable sums of cash to get the ball rolling. That will certainly threaten the life of one's wallet (or the collective wallet of the class), I'm sure.

• On the post: Utah Governor Vetoes Ridiculous Unconstitutional Content Moderation Bill; Makes His Brother-in-Law Sad

  

  sumgai ( profile ), 26 Mar, 2021 @ 01:34pm

  Re: Corporations exist ONLY by gov't / Public permission, TO SER

  I need to ask: which corporations are you talking about in your Subject line? Certainly not the for-profit corps, eh? They exist only for one reason - to make a profit, end-of-story, signal 30, fini, and all that. Some of them do indeed interact with the public, preferably for a profit, but that's not necessarily "serving the public". But many, many corps are formed only to remain private, forever hidden from public view. What they do is beyond examination, but a quick review of your state's Secretary of State records for incorporated entities will reveal what I've just said to be the truth. Now If by chance you're speaking of non-profit corps, then yes, they do have to serve a public need, and at various waypoints, they need to provide proof of having done so. That's the trade-off for being granted a tax-free status.

• On the post: Utah Governor Vetoes Ridiculous Unconstitutional Content Moderation Bill; Makes His Brother-in-Law Sad

  

  sumgai ( profile ), 26 Mar, 2021 @ 01:23pm

  Re: Re: Corporations exist ONLY by gov't / Public permission, TO

  People rely on food companies to make nutritious food, or at least safe for human consumption. Some food companies proved themselves incapable of even that basic standard, hence the need for regulation. Do remember what I said in another post here on TD - in order to become a member of an association, one might be required to meet certain entry requirements. That same dictum extends to corporations-in-the-offing - they must meet certain entry requirements in order to join the citizenry of the USA. You and I bypassed those "requirements" simply by being born of a woman, but that little factoid doesn't make us any better than a corp, not in the eyes of the law. Don't get all righteous and superior, because while they may be on the same footing as you and I, legally speaking, they do have a whale of a lot more money to spend on lawyers. Forgetting that can bring unintended, and undesirable, consequences. OTOH, Twitter does nothing to fulfill a human need, as does food, so human safety is not an issue that concerns anyone, let alone the government. I've gotten along for nearly 75 years without Twitter, or any other "big tech" social media, and I'm highly confident that I can and will continue to do so, until my final day. To reiterate: Twitter and other platforms of similar nature do not fulfill a basic human necessity - they are only play toys, and that's that. Speaking as an adult, I exercise my right to choose which toy(s) I will play with, based almost entirely on how good that toy makes me feel. (Hint: Techdirt is what I consider to be a "good" toy.)

• On the post: Utah Governor Vetoes Ridiculous Unconstitutional Content Moderation Bill; Makes His Brother-in-Law Sad

  

  sumgai ( profile ), 26 Mar, 2021 @ 11:46am

  Re: Corporations exist ONLY by gov't / Public permission, TO SER

  Jeebus, oh, noes, you sure don't get it, do you. The 14th Amendment greatly expanded the rights of citizens of all stripes, and it was ratified into law shortly after the Civil War to ensure that slavery would not again rear its ugly head. But it wasn't until 1886 that the USSC clarified, in Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Rail Road that corporations, being a creation of the state (at the behest of private citizens) were indeed entitled to those same Constitutional protections afforded to all other citizens. In effect, corporations became individuals, for want of a better comparison. I trust that the cited source will put your mind at ease, and hopefully you'll understand that we all have to accept the USSC decision, like it or not.

• On the post: If Trump Ever Actually Creates A Social Network Of His Own, You Can Bet It Will Rely On Section 230

  

  sumgai ( profile ), 26 Mar, 2021 @ 10:30am

  Re: Re: Re: If Maz ever wants a gun, he'll rely on 2nd Amendment

  Sorry, my parser broke down at "unacceptable to Techdirters". I'll need to spend the next several hours doing a person reset. In the meantime, one or more others may respond in my stead. Please stand by.....

• On the post: If Trump Ever Actually Creates A Social Network Of His Own, You Can Bet It Will Rely On Section 230

  

  sumgai ( profile ), 26 Mar, 2021 @ 08:38am

  Re: If Maz ever wants a gun, he'll rely on 2nd Amendment.

  Sadly, just like in real life, everyone here has missed the point. Society, at least the democratic version of it, has a history if missing the target and hitting the innocent bystander when it comes to fixing problems. For instance, all of the above replies to the OP go on about gun control, or slightly closer to the mark, mental health. Well, that last one is much closer to home, but still not quite on target. So what is the real target, you ask? Easy and simple - bullying. Show me a mass shooter who was not bullied at some point in his life, and I'll show you a truly mentally deficient person. Lawyers for these jackals are constantly pounding the 'temporary insanity' defense, which is the best one to save the shooter's life, but it doesn't do much to expose the underlying reason for why the shooter went berserk in the first place. The usual context is a poor upbringing vis-a-vis bad parenting. I'd posit that such may be a contributing factor, but somewhere along the way, one or more peers of the shooter went out of his/her/their way to bully the shooter. Under the "Kick The Dog" rule, we're seeing a delayed reaction, and that's all there is to it. Said reaction may come quickly (going postal), or it may be years in the making (waiting until one is old enough to purchase a gun), it doesn't matter - it's still a reaction. And the reason for that reaction should be obvious, but I'll spell it out anyway - we're raised to believe in justice, that all wrongs will be righted. But when the system fails to provide what we think would be a just solution, then we feel compelled to take matters into our own hands and find our own justice. That's what's wrong here, not the issue of what tool was used to deliver that justice. The solution is even more simple to contemplate, but vastly harder to implement.... stop bullying, in all its forms. Once that's done, the number of mass shootings will drop like a lead balloon, trust me on this one. My opening lines in this post? Snowflakes tend to look at the tool that caused the damage, and not at the person using the tool. Recently we've seen mass stabbings, for Pete's sake! No guns available? No problem, kitchen knives are a dime a dozen. And shall we take such common tools off the market, because the are too deadly? I'd say yes, because that's be about the only way to teach Snowflakes that stupid demands have consequences. Bad ones. But Snowflakes aren't the real problem here, they're only a distraction from the problem. We as a nation really need to get a handle on bullying, full stop. I'm reminded of a comparison chart, pitting 1957 versus 1997. In 1957, Johnny brings his plinking rifle to school for Show And Tell, and the teacher goes out to his truck and brings in his own rifle to compare the two. In 1997, Johnny mentions that his dad has a gun at home, and the School Resource Officer arrests him for threatening fellow students. My question is, how in Gawd's name did we go from sensible to Snowflake in only one generation? Answer me that, and I'll die a happy camper.

• On the post: Utah Governor Vetoes Ridiculous Unconstitutional Content Moderation Bill; Makes His Brother-in-Law Sad

  

  sumgai ( profile ), 25 Mar, 2021 @ 11:26pm

  What they really want is control over other's First Ammendnent rights.

  No, what they really want is total control, i.e. absolute power, for all time to come. They are executing a two-pronged attack to achieve this: a) Stifle voting by any who aren't already a member of "the good ol' boys club", and; b) twist the meaning and intent of the Constitution and amendments to their own ends. The latter shows that they are following the Book Of Instruction, as written by George Orwell. Double-speak indeed.

• On the post: If Trump Ever Actually Creates A Social Network Of His Own, You Can Bet It Will Rely On Section 230

  

  sumgai ( profile ), 25 Mar, 2021 @ 09:20am

  Re: Re:

  I lean more to PaulT's view, rather than to Stephen's. But Paul's final two or three sentences will be the telling point - to be viable (nee "liable"), the platform will have to pay for itself, because it's sure as Gawd made little green apples that Trump won't pay a bleeping penny towards the bills to run the thing. He's expecting that his name will automagically make all mundane things like utilities, hosting services, and all that, just "pay for themselves", out of thin air. And when the users don't pony up either in direct donations, or in buying advertised products (for a cut, of course), then he'll just simply declare bankruptcy, and start another service. In fact, to avoid S.230 lawsuits, he might get the bright idea to simply start and host his service outside of the USA borders in the first place. He'll escape culpability by saying he's "simply leasing my name to the service", or some such. And the "royalty" checks for that lease won't go directly to him, they'll go to his PAC, to become indiscernible from all the other dark money flowing into their coffers.

• On the post: Content Moderation Case Study: Huge Surge In Users On One Server Prompts Intercession From Discord (2021)

  

  sumgai ( profile ), 25 Mar, 2021 @ 08:58am

  Re: Re:

  It's simple, Mike. I'm saying, in the same written form as the posting, that Copia is attempting to interject their views on how a business should perform. In my view, they aren't asking Business X to review and take under advisement "these things", they are expressing in no uncertain terms that Business X should (nearly must) execute on these bullet-list items. As i said, they could be doing this in a positive manner, i.e. politely asking for a sit-down to discuss the various concerns. But I do admit, for all I know, they might be playing nice with the big boys, and the postings are simply abridged in such a manner as to make it look like they're..... curt, that's the word I'm looking for. As in, not abrupt or rude, simply not nuanced - curt describes that nicely. If that's the case, please let me/us know, and I'll gladly retract my statements and sentiments.

• On the post: Utah Governor Signs New Porn Filter Law That's Just Pointless, Performative Nonsense

  

  sumgai ( profile ), 25 Mar, 2021 @ 08:41am

  Re:

  everyone else will be preparing for the uptick in sales from neighbouring states.

  I'm betting that the $10 will simply be added to the retail price of all phones sold in Utah, meaning that not only can an adult deactivate the filter, he/she gets to pay for the privilege of doing so. Not a good business model, but it's probably cheaper than the phone companies getting together and suing the state. The one thing the Utah legislature knows is that being stupid is not a crime. Just imagine if it were...... If I were a phone retail seller, I'd be setting up shop about 100 feet over the border line in every direction, and making it clear to all and sundry that "our phones are not filtered", or something similar. And I'd advertise in the Salt Lace City Tribune, until the legislature makes advertising such a crime in itself. But radio? TV? And Lowered know, that whole Internet thingie?? Yeah', this is gonna work out juuuust fiiiine.

• On the post: Utah Governor Vetoes Ridiculous Unconstitutional Content Moderation Bill; Makes His Brother-in-Law Sad

  

  sumgai ( profile ), 25 Mar, 2021 @ 03:38pm

  What a fookin' dichotomy. Look at this first:

  action we take to protect online speech should seek to fully uphold the values enshrined in the First Amendment.

  I'd dearly like to think that he's speaking to all of the values enshrined in 1A. Now look at this:

  I am proud that Utah is leading the effort to protect individuals' speech on the internet,

  Nope, I was wrong, he's only interested in letting idiots spout off with every dumb thing from nonsense to hatred and vitriol.

  See, here's the thing - TOG and Stephen have both hit it on the head, but just for drill, here's 1A in all of it's shining glory (bolding will lead to my point):

  Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

  (I'm now speaking to cry-babies in general, which of course excludes 99% of Techdirt readers/posters.)
  I'll not go into all the gory details, but in long-established jurisprudence, the courts have held that this business of "freedom to assemble" works both ways - you can join whatever association or organization you wish, and you cannot be forced to join any association or organization against your will. (The draft for armed forces being the sole exception.) Obviously, you'll have to meet any requirements set forth for joining, but the point is, the association or organization can't be forced to allow you to join, period. Even if you meet all of the entry requirements, you can still be turned down for... reasons. Private reasons, no questions asked.

  All of this brouhaha about 'free speech' is just so much misdirection - it's really about assembling with others, which of course is the very definition of an association. Once inside the association, then speech can take place, providing the association's rules are followed (if any such exist). And guess what happens if you fail at rule-following? That's right Bunky, you get get to feel the door being slammed on your oh-so-sensitive butt cheeks. You should've followed the rules, Bunky, simple as that. But crying to the government about your ouster, or anyone else in what you hope will become the Court Of Public Opinion.... nyah, that' ain't gonna work out so well, trust me.

  A funny little thing about censoring someone. It means, literally, that you're being warned that your current speech topic (or other behavior) is not acceptable to the rest of the association - but, and this is important, you aren't be shown the door - you're still a member. When you're thrown out, that's indicative not of censoring, but of ostrasization - an altogether different thing. It'd help your cause tremendously if you learned the difference, and applied yourself accordingly. Banging the kettle drum about "free speech" will get you a large dose of my ignoring you, res judicata.

  One more thing:

  “Censorship practices are un-American and likely unconstitutional.

  In light of all I've written just now..... oh please, don't make me laugh, my gut is already in agony.

• On the post: Utah Governor Signs New Porn Filter Law That's Just Pointless, Performative Nonsense

  

  sumgai ( profile ), 25 Mar, 2021 @ 08:20am

  Re: If that law ever does become effective...

  The serial number will be on a label, somewhere... be it under the back cover, or even under the battery, it's be somewhere. Or if one knows how to get into the phone's settings, it'll be part of the System details. A better idea would be to require the entry of the last 20 digits of Pi - that'll slow 'em down a tad!

• On the post: If Trump Ever Actually Creates A Social Network Of His Own, You Can Bet It Will Rely On Section 230

  

  sumgai ( profile ), 24 Mar, 2021 @ 01:28pm

  Re:

  (I posted an earlier response, but it was held for moderation. Whether or not it comes back, we'll see.) There's a lot discuss about "the worst people problem", but I want to leave that for now (vis-a-vis my earlier post), and deal with "lot of attention" and "potential for growth". It seems to me that #45''s got immediate access to more than 70 million Americans that are slavishly sitting in his pews, plus a fair number of journalists, analysts, and "just curious" looky-loos. The latter grouping will likely stick it out for as long as possible, but the former group, aye, there's the rub. I think, without any real evidence besides my "feelz", that it will take a long time to burn through that large a number of adherents. IMO, the number of people who will get bored and leave will be small at first, and the acceleration rate of departures over time will not increase either. That's going to come down to the hardcore 20-50 most zealous acolytes repeating the Daily Mantra for all to see, and the rest of the board's population will simply not see any reason to move on elsewhere. After all, it's really going to come down to confirmation bias. IMO, of course.

• On the post: Content Moderation Case Study: Huge Surge In Users On One Server Prompts Intercession From Discord (2021)

  

  sumgai ( profile ), 24 Mar, 2021 @ 07:06pm

  Copia Institute frequently tries to "file an Amicus Curiae brief" with other businesses.

  Decisions to be made by Copia:

  see below

  Questions and policy implications to consider:

  see below

  Resolution:

  Copia could do a better job of trying to sway leaders of other businesses/sites to their way of seeing things. For example: Instead of "Things to consider", which is rightfully taken as "Hey dummy, you didn't anticipate this, didya?", Copia might say "We have some insight we'd like to share with you, Mr. Business Owner, could we make some time to get together, please?"

  IOW, it's the old 'honey rather than vinegar' trick, I'm sure you understand.

  And yes, I'm not afraid to sign my name to this, I've felt this way since Copia's first post of this nature. I don't doubt for a minute that their intentions are good, but the way they're going about it just strikes me as pretty near to picking a fight, and not a way that one engages in meaningful discussion.

• On the post: Despite A Decade Of Complaints, US Wireless Carriers Continue To Abuse The Word 'Unlimited'

  

  sumgai ( profile ), 24 Mar, 2021 @ 10:15am

  Re: Do you think a MONTHLY 'Unlimited' plan isn't LIMITED?

  @Duke Ya know buddy, some of us are reaching for the Troll button right about now.... It might be a sign of good faith on your part if you were to not set up Mike as a straw man for ad hominem attacks, and instead present arguments that go directly to the point of the current discussion. My mouse finger might stop twitching so violently as I desparately want to hit that magic red button.

• On the post: If Trump Ever Actually Creates A Social Network Of His Own, You Can Bet It Will Rely On Section 230

  

  sumgai ( profile ), 24 Mar, 2021 @ 10:02am

  Re:

  our little words: the “worst people” problem.

  It's called "positive reinforcement", but in the collective opinion of the majority of the world (and particularly the USA), it will be of a negative nature. That will serve only to point out all the more easily just exactly who failed to grow up and learn to think for him/herself. The platform's mission will be to instill an even stronger sense of community, and reinvigorate the call to "restore the real president to his rightful seat", etc. yadda yadda, so on and so forth. Under current Twitter/Facebook rules, that's not a likely scenario, hence the annoucement - to whet appetites of the mental-toddlers for yet more bullshit..... errrr, conversations about how to put their Beloved Leader For Life back on his throne.

• On the post: If Trump Ever Actually Creates A Social Network Of His Own, You Can Bet It Will Rely On Section 230

  

  sumgai ( profile ), 24 Mar, 2021 @ 09:53am

  Re:

  And what will the hackers do? Anything they might do would be an improvement, I'm sure. After all, how can you "deface" a site that already has the world's most ugly face??

• On the post: Cricut Hastily Walks Back Plan To Charge Cutting Machine Owners $10/Month To Fully Use Their Purchases

  

  sumgai ( profile ), 19 Mar, 2021 @ 08:39am

  Re: Re: Cricut?

  The OP meant a lawsuit over the name - Cricut vs. Cricket.

• On the post: The Internet Is Not Just Facebook, Google & Twitter: Creating A 'Test Suite' For Your Great Idea To Regulate The Internet

  

  sumgai ( profile ), 18 Mar, 2021 @ 05:27pm

  Re: Banking, Netflix, & Chill

  the next time Congress calls "Internet companies" to DC to sit in front of some Committee that doesn't understand shit...PLEASE DO NOT MAKE IT THE SAME GAFA COMPANIES

  Do recall that because these companies are the only ones that donate to political campaigns, they are the only ones on any senator's radar. Moral of the story: if you don't give them cash, they won't know you exist. Further moral: stay small, and/or hide your profits so that they don't know how big you actually are, and thus will escape their notice.

Next >>