Tanner Andrews 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (1403) comment rss

  • On the post: Copyright Troll Richard Liebowitz Finally Disbarred

    Tanner Andrews ( profile ), 23 Mar, 2024 @ 07:42am

    slow grind

    Well, yes, uit took way too long for him to be disbarred. The good news is that he appears to have been suspended from practice while the disbarment process crept forward. That should have reduced or eliminated the risk of harm to the public from his practice.

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

    Tanner Andrews ( profile ), 13 Mar, 2024 @ 04:27am

    age verification is ill defined

    So just to say you’re over 18 anybody can click YES.
    Which doesn’t verify you’re over 18 as required by this bill. Dipshit. facepalms
    If I ask a kid, Can you verify that you are over 18?'', and the kid says,yes'', then I have verified it. If I were really into security, I could ask him for his birth date. Going beyond that, please define ``verify'' in some workable manner.

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

    Tanner Andrews ( profile ), 13 Mar, 2024 @ 04:22am

    any suifficiently advanced technology

    However there has to be a sure way to verify someone is 18 years old
    When you find a solution that works on the internet, let me know. We can then set up internet access points at the doors of bars, movie theatres, and dirty-book stores, where the problem of age verification has been intractable for ages.

  • On the post: Florida’s Unconstitutional ‘Stop WOKE’ Act Blocked By The 11th Circuit Appeals Court

    Tanner Andrews ( profile ), 12 Mar, 2024 @ 05:11am

    upgraded solution

    Your solution is the best one, paraphrased as: Don’t feed the fucking trolls!
    I suggest an upgrade here. If you run with javascript enabled and it works for you, consider not only failing to feed the trolls, but NOT failing to flag them. That might help reduce the visual clutter. If we wait for the (no longer very) new platform to fix the flag-needs-javascript bug, we should be very careful. If we hold our breaths, we can turn blue.

  • On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt

    Tanner Andrews ( profile ), 11 Mar, 2024 @ 05:57am

    perhaps not the most effective plan

    Anti-monopsony stances and market regulation to rein in large companies aren’t really a Republican thing. Bad guess on your part.
    I am not sure that requiring social media sites to give money to large companies like News Corp is really a very effective way to ``rein in large companies''. Normally if I were wanting go rein in some company, I would not go about it by requiring people to give it money.

  • On the post: UK Military Censors Dismayed US Tech Companies Won’t Do More Censoring

    Tanner Andrews ( profile ), 10 Mar, 2024 @ 12:13am

    not so easy

    But Dodds suggested that tech firms could monitor their platforms like they do for illegal content, such as child abuse material
    Monitoring for classified material is not quite so easy. You can readily spot the [#]CSAM material due to the approved hash-tag used when posting it. Until there is a similar manner of identifying secret stuff, I do not really expect the web services to be able to prevent such postings. Perhaps they can cultivate the use of #UKMI5 and #UKMI6 tags for such stuff, and then sweet-talk target platforms into monitoring those.

  • On the post: No One Cares That Bill Ackman’s Wife May Have Plagiarized; They Care About Ackman’s Hypocritical Double Standard

    Tanner Andrews ( profile ), 03 Mar, 2024 @ 03:02am

    not clear how this is to be done

    My experience is that a level response to a Clare Locke demand letter can back them down
    I am not sure how you respond to 77 pages of failure to identify false statements of fact in a libel demand letter. Anything beyond a one-pager asking them to identify each false statement of fact to be corrected would seem to be a waste of paper. Or electrons, if sent by e-mail.

  • On the post: Court: Turning A Minor Parking Violation Into A String Of Rights Violations Is A Great Way To Lose Your Evidence

    Tanner Andrews ( profile ), 01 Mar, 2024 @ 10:24pm

    plausible deniability

    have nothing to do with the back end of the site
    No one was blaming you personally for the fact that ``preview'' an ``flag'' are still broken without javascript, despite the fact that they worked on the old site. How long ago was the switch? And still no fix.

  • On the post: George Santos Files Very Silly Copyright Lawsuit Against Jimmy Kimmel Over His Cameo Videos

    Tanner Andrews ( profile ), 25 Feb, 2024 @ 05:10am

    sounds like a

    Kimmel wrote the actual words in Santos’ videos
    Someone paid Santos to craft a message and perform it. That sounds a lot like a work for hire.

  • On the post: Cop Tries To Kill An Arrestee Because Nature Happened

    Tanner Andrews ( profile ), 25 Feb, 2024 @ 01:33am

    fair summary

    So technically, the police are for white people only.
    Right. In fact, that is a fair summary of the creation and history of police forces in the U.S. The goal was to keep what we now call ``minorities'' in line.

  • On the post: Transport For London Adds AI To Its Cameras To Bust Fare Jumpers, Bike Riders

    Tanner Andrews ( profile ), 17 Feb, 2024 @ 05:00am

    extreme example

    The fare-collection system for Sunrail (DeLand Jct/Orlando/Poinciana) commuter trains costs more to operate than they collect in fares.

  • On the post: Florida Supreme Court: Victims’ Rights Law Can’t Be Used To Block Reporting On Police Misconduct

    Tanner Andrews ( profile ), 15 Feb, 2024 @ 05:43am

    Actually, the law is a good one
    The law is bad. It is written to make it easy to abuse Indeed, some abuse is baked in, allowing victim involvement to delay trials while the accused languishes in durance vile. It interferes by its own terms with defense investigation, while leaving the state free to gather or hide evidence and spring surprises. The hiding of victim information is questionable at best. Suitably published, it can serve as a caution in case the same or similar crooks are out there. The evils, injuries to crime victims, are already barred by existing law. There is no provision that Marcy's Law would not apply when the crime did not occur, or the victim was making stuff up. One seeking information would have to litigate blind to prove that no crime occurred before information could be had against the fabulist.

  • On the post: Florida Has Yet Another Unconstitutional Social Media Bill; Wants To Ban Kids From Social Media

    Tanner Andrews ( profile ), 08 Feb, 2024 @ 05:08am

    not short enough

    short legislative session of Florida
    Considering what comes out of Tallahassee, I think it is about two months too long!

  • On the post: British Man Put On Trial In Spain Over Stupid (But Obvious) ‘Blow Up A Plane’ Joke

    Tanner Andrews ( profile ), 01 Feb, 2024 @ 04:41am

    hello, captain not-so-obvious

    obviously not with everybody
    Right, it was in a private group, was with a limited audience. That audience knew that he was often stereotyped as a likely musselman terrorist due to his complexion, so for that audience of his friends it might have been funny. For snoopy and otherwise idle govt employees, who lack the background possessed by the legitimate audience, it probably appeared as a way to justify their jobs.

  • On the post: In A Couple Of Weeks Mickey Will Be Free*; And Our Public Domain Game Jam Will Be Open

    Tanner Andrews ( profile ), 28 Jan, 2024 @ 02:28am

    heirs inherit

    Okay but why though
    Because that was his way of earning income to support his family. If I receive payment in money, it can continue to draw interest even after I die. If I accept stock as compensation for my work, the dividends properly go to my heirs. If I have a right to royalties for my writings, my heirs ought to receive what I owned when I died. The public still gets the benefit of its bargain: the work continues to exist and will pass into the public domain, whether or not I continue to consume oxygen.

  • On the post: Ben Franklin Was All About Content Moderation

    Tanner Andrews ( profile ), 28 Jan, 2024 @ 01:53am

    not sure how we enforce this

    When the public square is owned by a few large private companies, it’s very easy for free speech to be stifled entirely legally and constitutionally [...] In a country that has free speech as a foundational value, these companies have a moral obligation not to do that
    I am not sure how we enforce such a ``moral obligation''. But perhaps that is not really an issue. Initially, we should note that it is not really a public square if it is owned by a company which gets to control or operate it. If we can require the company to allow [whichever group I dislike] to march there, then we have taken at least one of the sticks from the owner's bundle of rights. Second, if it is really a public square, we tax everyone to maintain it, and whoever gets there in the morning with their soap box gets to stand on said box and orate. If the square is owned and operated by a private entity, then that is not necessarily the rule. Their money, their square, their choice who gets hosted. I do not get to pass out Pepsi adverts on the front lawn of the Coca Cola company. Third, I am not sure I see a real distinction for large companies, either. Scale it down: in my living room we do not allow disfavored groups to visit, eat my food, or drink my beer. If you think it should be otherwise, buy the living room and tax everyone for its operation.

  • On the post: Florida Senator Introduces Bill That Would Make Accusations Of Racism, Transphobia De Facto Defamation

    Tanner Andrews ( profile ), 27 Jan, 2024 @ 04:05pm

    hard to believe, indeed

    Unbelievably, the bill doesn’t attempt to erase the state’s anti-SLAPP law.
    What is unbelievable is this statement in the original article. At least it is very hard to believe it if one has read S:11 of the bill, which changes ``prevailing'' to ``non-moving''. The anti-SLAPP statute presently permits defendants to move for early dismissal, The defendant makes the motion. With this revision, only the defendant is on the hook for fees. This makes the anti-SLAPP statute purely decorative. Claiming that the bill does not erase the anti-SLAPP statute is the sort of banana oil that we would expect from Tallahassee.

  • On the post: Ohio Court Says Calling Cincinnati Police Officer Ryan Olthaus A Racist Is Protected Speech

    Tanner Andrews ( profile ), 24 Jan, 2024 @ 04:55am

    still waiting

    They file a lot of stupid stuff in Tallahassee. An amount which might be surprising to an outsider actually becomes law. Locals have come to expect it, and occasionally note that Tallahassee is not all that far from Chattahoochee. The courts generally do not agree that truth and opinion are defamation. That is why I asked for cases. Things may get worse as older judges age out and the mix includes a greater proportion of DeSantis/Scott/Crist/Bush appointees. (In fairness I should disclose that I have a defamation case pending with the Fla Supreme Court.)

  • On the post: Ohio Court Says Calling Cincinnati Police Officer Ryan Olthaus A Racist Is Protected Speech

    Tanner Andrews ( profile ), 16 Jan, 2024 @ 04:35am

    [citation needed]

    Florida fascists say truth and opinion are defamation.
    Got any case cites for that, or is this just fantasy from Tallahassee or Chattahoochee?

  • On the post: Ohio Court Says Calling Cincinnati Police Officer Ryan Olthaus A Racist Is Protected Speech

    Tanner Andrews ( profile ), 16 Jan, 2024 @ 04:28am

    facts in the courts

    If it can be disproven, then it’s not a fact.
    Not quite. A fact is something amenable to proof. Examples: [a] It rained yesterday [b] Elon has seven fingers on his left hand I can objectively determine whether it rained,and I can count the fingers. The first fact might be true, the second might not, but the examples are statements of fact. Compare opinion: [c] it was nice out yesterday [d] he is a very fine person Nice will depend on the viewer and whether he wanted to play golf, and fine may depend on your view of neo-nazis. Neither of these examples is amenable to proof, so they are opinion rather than fact.

Next >>