Ah, I see, so TD is evil enough to frustrate some people by leaving their comment in limbo until they get to it, but not quite evil enough to just delete them entirely. Yes, makes perfect sense, truly Machiavellian.
So... no evidence then of anything more nefarious than what I've already said regarding a spam filter and how some IP addresses get caught up in it? Likely due to being marked as 'abusive/trolling/spam' enough times by other commentors/visitors that the filters just assume that it's so and treat it accordingly? Or using something like Tor which (to the best of my knowledge) always results in a comment being held? Just more assertions that it happens and you somehow know exactly why?
Regarding the 'How would you feel...', as a matter of fact I have had some of my comments caught by the system, and from what I've seen and experienced unless the comment is made during the weekend TD is generally quick to clear them, so 'a couple of days'? Not so much.
(As an aside, your comment reminded me of something I mentioned in my first reply during this back and forth, and just out of curiosity, what's your stance on sites being responsible for user comments/submissions?)
If you're going to say 'it's a fact' then providing some evidence to support that 'fact' would probably help.
Evidence that demonstrates that it's more than the spam filter catching comments and requiring them to be manually cleared mind, as between 'spam filter' and 'nefarious plot to silence dissent' Occam's Razor is pretty clear which is more likely.
While you're at it perhaps explain why, if TD cares so much to set up a filter for 'Divisive Persons' they allow those comments to be posted at all, when it would be far easier to just block them entirely.
In which case clearing their cookies should fix that matter right up, and like that the nefarious List has been bested. It's almost cute though that you think TD cares so very much about the comments from random people that they would go out of their way to create a system to delay(not prevent) comments from those people being posted.
As for 'toeing the party line', yeah, there's been many a commentor that disagreed to various degrees with what was posted and yet didn't have their comment(s) moderated or even flagged as 'abusive/trolling/spam' enough that a single mouse click was enough to reveal their comment(s).
In fact we've got several people in this very comment section who you could argue aren't 'toeing the party line' and yet there their comments are, plain to see. Funny that, perhaps they haven't been added to The List yet?
Tell me, do you also believe that spam filters are 'censorship'? Because that, not 'delaying comments they do not like' is the reason some comments get held in moderation, certain IP addresses are marked as spam and everything from them gets held up until they're checked and confirmed not to be spam.
You can drop the conspiracy theory/persecution complex, it's really as simple as that.
(Things get even funnier if the comment is posted by one of those that believe that sites should be held liable for the comments of their users, as they're just getting a best case scenario taste of what that sort of thing would result in.)
'Foreign governments, groups and individuals aren't allowed to offer questionable 'gifts' to senators and and members of congress, in order to avoid any possible conflict of interest... they can however absolutely offer those 'gifts' to the president' strikes me as all sorts of wrong, even if you are right about the distinction between the clauses and it is technically only supposed to apply to one branch instead of both(or ideally all three).
Oh yeah, he's so desperate to hide it he went out of his way to write an entire article about it. You know, this one, maybe you missed it in your hurry to educate the masses?
Seriously, that? You lot are still bringing that up as your 'smoking gun'? You are aware that it's been brought up before and shown to be bunk, right?
Google was ordered to list anyone who had ever had any financial tie to them and had commented on the case at hand, and even that document list the 'tie' between Mike/TD and Google as indirect, through a group that Google is a part of and that had commissioned studies from Floor64 in the past.
(Fun fact: If doing so means he's a 'shill' for Google, he would also be a shill for '...Microsoft, eBay, Sprint, Facebook, AMD, Fujitsu, Dish Networks and more', including Oracle, the opposition in the case.)
As far as I'm aware when the issue of past presidents owning businesses and whatnot came up they did what they could to sever connections between themselves and said businesses to avoid a conflict of interest. Trump... didn't really do this. He handed the reigns of his business to his two sons, and still has a financial stake in it.
With him still involved to that extent it's hardly surprising that he would get extra scrutiny over anything related to it, and while some of the motivation might be partisan a good chunk of the blame would seem to rest right on his shoulders for what he didn't do and could have.
That was... wow. Gotta admit though, some good schadenfreude from some parts of that, and the comment section seemed pretty split between what I hope were paid shills(seriously, including the link in every comment? Who does that in an actual comment?) and people gleefully tearing the claims to pieces.
Those main points being what again? That you don't think TD is that important? That you think that the 'financial models' aren't working for whatever reason, something which has absolutely squat to do with the lawsuit? Some third 'point' that I missed? What points did I provide additional evidence for?
I don't care if you donate or not, I was merely pointing out that your reasoning was short-sighted at best, if not outright irrelevant to the matter at hand.
TD may not 'matter that much' to you but the precedent of 'Say something mean about someone with money and they'll use the courts to crush you' this lawsuit will further entrench into the law will affect far more than one site and service, and given your complaints about 'disaster porn' and 'propaganda-for-rich-fanatics' reporting the chilling effect from this sort of lawsuit is likely to lead to even more of that.
Note: The Techdirt Deals Store is powered and curated by StackCommerce. A portion of all sales from Techdirt Deals helps support Techdirt. The products featured do not reflect endorsements by our editorial team.
If I'm reading that right then yes to an extent, though more direct means like TD Insider and gear would probably result in more money getting to TD, though I could be wrong.
A 'significant legal hurdle'? Not really, just requires more money than the other side and a willingness to spend it, which is especially easy when someone else is paying.
If you meant that the judge is less likely to dismiss it at this stage because the other side was forced to settle, then while that may be the case it most certainly shouldn't be. That he was able to take advantage of another lawsuit which drove the shared opposition into the ground most certainly shouldn't be counted in his favor.
All potentially because someone found a way into my router without my knowledge.
Oh it's even more absurd than that. It doesn't even need to reach the level of 'Someone else used your connection to infringe on copyrights', a third-party merely needs to assert that it happened and far too many judges will just take them at their word.
Less 'Someone else drove your car and broke the law, so you're going to be held responsible' and more 'Someone else claims that a car that looks like the one they claim is yours broke the law, and we're not going to check whether or not you even own a car, and if so whether or not it was your car, we're just going to make you responsible for the crime anyway'.
That still strikes me as a 'cost/time saving measure', as well as a cheap dodge around the prohibition against self-incrimination.
'We know X is there' isn't going to hold up in court I would think, whereas 'The prosecution would like to submit X as Exhibit A' is.
The first isn't likely to be treated a legally admissible evidence, the second is, so while it may seem nit-picky it still strikes me as an important difference, and one that forced decryption makes the accused cross, if in no other way that someone decrypting a device and/or providing a password are, in that very act, providing evidence that can be used against them.
Being able to unlock the device demonstrates that the one doing so can, which means they can be linked to whatever the password was protecting.
The most incriminating evidence in existence doesn't do the prosecutors any good if they can't link it to the accused, and being able to provide the password creates that link by establishing that the accused had access to the evidence.
Taking the padlock example it would be more along the lines of 'Go get the key and then use it to unlock this safe', an act that both provides the contents and demonstrates that the one who is being ordered knew where the key was.
As always, this could be easily demonstrated by demanding a legally binding agreement of immunity for anything that the act of decryption provided, an agreement that would not be granted you can be sure, as it would undermine the entire purpose of demanding someone provide the password.
Actually, let's lower the bar shall we, how about you define 'fake news' before you present any examples, because like I said above I still have no gorram clue what that term is supposed to mean given how often it's thrown around.