That One Guy’s Techdirt Profile


About That One Guy Techdirt Insider

That One Guy’s Comments comment rss

  • May 8th, 2021 @ 12:45pm


    For all the good such an action would do anyway, as I'd say it's pretty clear the only opinions and voices he's interested in listening to on the subject are those from people that agree with him.

  • May 7th, 2021 @ 4:42pm

    If the truth is on your side you don't need to lie

    Which is rather telling as if the law really was so terrible you'd think someone would have come out with an honest argument against it by now, and yet all that's ever presented are blatant lies, misrepresentations and strawmen.

  • May 7th, 2021 @ 2:53pm

    Re: Re: '... They're still paying us right? What's the problem?'

    Given the CPSC(Consumer Product Safety Commission, a government agency) was willing to go so far as to tell people not to use Peloton's treadmills I suspect that either they were notably worse on safety features, or they lacked safety features that the change in environment(gym vs home use) should have warranted being added.

  • May 7th, 2021 @ 2:40pm

    'You shut it when I'm using your words dishonestly against you!'

    Ordinarily, of course, my work can speak for itself. The problem was, the author of this piece didn't let it speak for itself. Instead he stripped it of its context, plucking out only bits of the overall argument, citing ideas so incompletely, so orphaned from the overall message in which they were delivered, as to effectively mischaracterize my position. And then he used that mischaracterization of what I had argued as ammunition to underpin his anti-230 argument.

    It's one thing to simply misread and misunderstand something, that can be excused as an honest mistake, but this? No, it's all but impossible to see this as anything but deliberate, indicative of someone who was not honestly looking into the subject and reading other opinions on it but who had already decided their conclusion and was looking for strawmen to throw up and tear down in order to 'bolster' their point.

  • May 7th, 2021 @ 2:29pm

    '... Or what, you'll give me another slap on the wrist?'

    I don't think those are still questions for any reality based people. The question now is whether the ban should be permanent, or his account should be reinstated at some point.

    If they have any brains in their collective heads the former without a doubt, as if he is let back on the message sent will be that the only thing he has to worry about is temporary time-outs(and even that will be all but impossible to achieve, given what it took for the rules to be applied to him the first time), and if they thought he was bad before they're really not going to like what he'll be like then.

  • May 7th, 2021 @ 2:16pm

    Ah good old hachet-jobs...

    And yet again it is proven that (to date) the only way to argue against 230 is to lie about it, and even then damn did they go above and beyond in their dishonesty, strawmannning and cherry-picking to craft the narrative they wanted.

    Whatever the one who wrote that might have been, whatever reputation they might have held before it was published at this point, after such a grossly dishonest presentation of the subject I struggle to see any way people should trust anything they cover from here on out, because if they are willing to go that far to grind an axe on one subject for what reason should people believe they won't/haven't done the same on other subjects?

  • May 7th, 2021 @ 4:59am

    'Less money' in a monopoly position is still quite profitable

    If there's one thing that the U.S. broadband industry is terrified of, it's price regulation.

    As much as price regulation(or any regulation really) might get under their skin I imagine their greatest fear is competition actually, as if there are other viable alternatives then they either offer a product/service worth paying for or they'll quickly find their customers switching providers, something which drastically cuts down on the bargaining power they have and their ability to dictate terms to their customers.

    With regulations they have lots of practice in technically adhering to/fulfilling requirements while doing as little as possible and squeezing as much money out as possible, but it's somewhat more difficult for them to work around actual competition as doing so requires them to either spend time and money improving their service, cutting prices to match that of their competitor's, or both.

    This I'd say is why they fight so hard to kill off and keep out any viable alternatives from the market, because while it's cheap enough to buy a few politicians to allow them to ignore any regulations or requirements when they're the only game in town if they have to deal with real competition things get a lot harder and a lot less profitable for them.

  • May 6th, 2021 @ 6:30pm

    '... They're still paying us right? What's the problem?'

    Informed by dozens of people that their treadmills can be seriously dangerous to children and pets, with one kid left with lifelong brain-damage and another dead and they blame the victims by claiming that if people just heed the safety warnings their stuff is perfectly safe. Informed that their digital security might as well be non-existent they shrug it off for two weeks only to roll out a mediocre 'fix', and only decide to get serious when security researchers tell them they'll be talking to the press next...

    Oh yeah, this is definitely a company that puts it's customers first and foremost and one that absolutely deserves trust and support from the public.

  • May 6th, 2021 @ 4:01pm

    Going above and beyond... in abusing the system

    When a lawyer faces a penalty for their behavior in court you know they really screwed up, because it takes some serious work to get a judge to issue more than a stern finger wagging when it comes to lawyers as many, many articles on TD can attest to.

  • May 6th, 2021 @ 2:24pm


    Unless you're talking about the insurrectionists who stormed the capitol and are (as far as I know) still being investigated due to the sheer size of the mob I wasn't aware that anyone who attended a Trump rally was facing legal consequences for doing so, got a source for that?

  • May 6th, 2021 @ 2:09pm

    '... what the problem, I'm doing/going to do that myself.'

    The hurdle with dealing with such open corruption like this is that you need to convince a majority of politicians first that corruption is bad and then convince them to crack down on it in a meaningful manner, something that's going to cut off the chance for them to benefit from any corruption they might want to wallow in in the future, both of which are going to be extremely hard sells.

  • May 6th, 2021 @ 2:01pm

    At least take the price-tags off before whining...

    And we've heard from multiple people now that Tillis bristles at the idea that he's somehow owned and operated by Hollywood lobbyists.

    'How dare you imply that I've been bought out!' screamed the man who might as well have SOLD tattooed on his forehead.

    To argue that he's not owned by Hollywood he'd basically have to argue that it's a complete and total coincidence that the bills and arguments he puts forth(and lies about) are exactly what Hollywood desires and says, that both them and he just so happen to hold the exact same positions, and that it's completely unrelated how one of his staffers just co-wrote an op-ed filled to the brim with lies and attempted history revisionism regarding his act of gross dishonesty sneaking in one of their biggest desires and bypassing any opportunity to discuss and toss it like an honest person would have.

    If he doesn't like people accusing him of being a stooge then he should stop acting like one, until then people will accurately keep pointing out that he might as well have a 'Property of Hollywood' patch on every one of his suits.

  • May 5th, 2021 @ 6:11pm

    For shame, they forgot to try to blame the kitchen sink too

    You'd think someone that rich would have the ability to hire competent lawyers but I guess he was scraping the bottom of the barrel for representation, though perhaps the horrible excuses were his idea and he just kept going through lawyers until he found one that was able to make such terrible arguments with a straight face.

  • May 5th, 2021 @ 6:03pm

    Re: 3 Insurrections

    I'd drop that to one, as even a failed insurrection is kind of a big deal and should have appropriate repercussions.

  • May 5th, 2021 @ 3:01pm


    I suspect he will scramble like mad to jump back on civilized platforms if they're stupid enough to let him back on actually, as he's the sort of person who needs an audience and only a comparatively small number of people are likely to sign up for his cesspit, all of them already his cultists, as opposed to the much larger number who use better platforms who are only likely to hear what he's saying if a cultist cross-posts it from his site.

  • May 5th, 2021 @ 2:57pm

    Re: Not that important?

    I mean it's Fox, they were going to lose their shit no matter what the decision was, that's kinda their thing.

  • May 5th, 2021 @ 2:55pm

    Either bring the hammer down or don't bother

    In general, the Board cited to general principles of human rights law, and specifically the Rabat Plan of Action "to assess the capacity of speech to create a serious risk of inciting discrimination, violence, or other lawless action." As for how long suspensions should generally last, they should be long enough to "deter misconduct and may, in appropriate cases, include account or page deletion.

    Given this is Trump we're talking about, someone who seems to earnestly believe that the rules/laws simply do not apply to him, anything short of a permanent ban will not be effective because anything less will simply be shrugged off and/or used to fuel the persecution complex of both him and his cultists, so between his actions and his character I'd say a permanent ban is not only warranted it's the only choice that will actually work, because if they think he was bad before just wait until they let him back on and he (rightly) comes to the conclusion that any penalties they might hand out will be nothing more than wrist slaps.

  • May 5th, 2021 @ 9:11am

    'Tell the truth or get out!' said the liar

    The hypocrisy is priceless, yes, he's thrown together a set of rules and acceptable behavior that would see him kicked off his own site in very short order were they ever applied to him.

  • May 5th, 2021 @ 12:14am

    Throwing a party only for no-one to show

    Many other platforms exist, even as you pretend they don't count. Why are you people so unable to put the work in to create something, you have to try and steal the work of others?

    As you noted below in your comment they have put in the effort to create other platforms, the 'problem' they keep running into is that the majority of people don't want anything to do with those platforms which leaves them in the position of either accepting a comparatively minuscule audience of people who already agree with them or trying to force their way onto more civilized platforms so they can have a larger audience.

  • May 4th, 2021 @ 10:09pm

    Re: Re:

    Unless you want to argue that you are owed an audience of a certain size the fact that the audience is likely to be smaller is irrelevant, as the fact remains that you can 'make your own' whether you're famous or not.

More comments from That One Guy >>

This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it