That One Guy’s Techdirt Profile


About That One Guy Techdirt Insider

That One Guy’s Comments comment rss

  • Jul 4th, 2020 @ 3:20pm

    'If we can't kill it then we can at least cripple it.'

    While the publishers with more greed than sense were too late to kill off libraries entirely(something which I'm sure is a source of great annoyance to them) they are certainly doing their hardest to make sure that libraries stay as old fashioned as possible, preventing them from implementing more modern changes to better serve the public.

  • Jul 4th, 2020 @ 3:19am

    (untitled comment)

    If 230 really was such a terrible law you'd think there would be honest and factual arguments against it left and right, ones backed up by verifiable data in significant amounts, yet time and time again all that gets thrown out is strawmen, dishonest and/or inaccurate arguments and anecdotal examples that do not hold up under scrutiny.

    Either there simply are no good arguments against 230 or they exist and yet after years of the discussion no-one has brought them up, and it's not hard to guess which is the more likely.

  • Jul 4th, 2020 @ 3:13am

    Re: Re: Re:

    Unlike the ISP space, where external regulation is desperately needed, there's a wide range of choice for those who dislike FB's policies.

    Ah, but you see the alternative choices don't come with the massive user base that Facebook does, and moreoever never will have those numbers, as most people will prefer to avoid bigot/troll-friendly platforms, sticking with the ones where that kind of behavior isn't generally encouraged.

    To the kind of people who believe that they are owed an audience this simply will not do, hence the attempts to force the current major players to host their rubbish rather than making their own, competing platforms, as they know that if they create their own it'll just be people like them on it.

  • Jul 3rd, 2020 @ 3:15pm

    Apply force correctly and a little can do a lot

    I'd be fine with dropping the settlement/fine amounts levied against cops, making it so that they would need 'lower' liability coverage if it meant that they personally would be on the hook.

    A fine of fifty thousand paid out mostly by their insurance and the increase in premiums would provide a lot more incentive to behave than a million dollar fine that the city and thereby the taxpayers are on the hook for.

  • Jul 3rd, 2020 @ 2:32am

    Re: Re: 'Only I am allowed to call people wrong, me!'

    Legally no(not for lack of desire though I'm sure), but with the fits that followed it you could certainly be excused for thinking that it was.

  • Jul 2nd, 2020 @ 2:00pm

    'Only I am allowed to call people wrong, me!'

    And cue yet another tantrum by Trump and his supporters claiming that fact checking him counts as censorship and persecution, ignoring the rampant hypocrisy that is him accusing others of being wrong all the time.

    It took too long for Facebook to get around to applying the rules even to those that dearly need it, but better late than never, and of the three options this one might be the best assuming they actually follow through after the pending tantrum.

  • Jul 2nd, 2020 @ 1:40pm


    Nothing will shift his diehards(at this point with a global pandemic that name has become rather literal), but it can potentially knock a few of the fringe supporters off who are faced with one lie too many on a subject they consider important, like, oh I dunno, living.

  • Jul 2nd, 2020 @ 1:39pm

    'Can't blame that law, our donors LOVE that law.'

    Because blaming the DMCA/copyright law would mean not bashing those terrible, 'conservative persecuting' social media sites, and instead force them to address how insanely broken copyright law is, something that would not make a good number of their 'donors' happy.

  • Jul 2nd, 2020 @ 1:29pm

    If it's a bad thing today it's still a bad thing tomorrow

    That merger conditions come with a timer is what gets me every time. The very idea of a problem being serious enough to warrant specifically telling a company 'you are not allowed to do this' and yet after a set amount of time it magically becomes no big deal is beyond absurd, and shows just how toothless such conditions actually are and how the entire process is little more than a song and dance, made to look good but not actually hold back the companies involved in any meaningful way.

  • Jul 2nd, 2020 @ 2:19am

    'Can't blame us, it's the software's fault.'

    If the goal is more efficient use of time and resources then software throwing out almost nothing but false positives is a terrible idea, so either the department is run by idiots or the software is being used for something else.

    Given an almost 100% failure rate will ensure a lot of wasted time the only reason I can think to keep using it is as a scapegoat, a way to excuse any bogus investigations and/or arrests by claiming that since the software noted a match they were just following up, 'just to be sure'.

  • Jul 2nd, 2020 @ 1:38am

    And the lord did say, 'Screw you, I got mine.'

    Oh wait...there's a conservative bible database in which the Holy Bible is edited to serve modern conservative American values. I don't know which modern conservative American values, or which bible was its original foundation. But it's a thing.

    Oh that is just too good if so, not to mention exposing that they are just using the book to justify what they already believe/want to do.

    'This book is the word of The Almighty God, but people keep pointing to passages in it that make us look like complete assholes, so looks like we're just going to need to do a little 'editing' to 'modernize' it.'

    I wonder if Parler, like Conservapedia is just a middle-aged man's personal journey to discovering that he's been wrong all along, and how he processes this new information.

    While I'm not sure it'll change many minds due to the kind of people who would flock to it not being big on the whole 'admitting to being wrong' thing I suspect it's going to be a rather unpleasant wake-up for more than a few as they find out just what sort of platform you get when it's jut nothing but 'conservatives', with a good many eventually crawling back to Twitter or Facebook to dig themselves out of the muck they'd so gleefully jumped into without checking first.

  • Jul 1st, 2020 @ 8:52pm

    'After careful review by myself I have found that I'm innocent.'

    Adding insult to injury(at times literal) is the blatant hypocrisy, in that you can be damn sure that if the NYPD was investigating someone accused of a crime that didn't have a badge or enough wealth/power they would never accept the accused deciding that nah, they're going to investigate themselves, because they don't want some outside party getting in the way.

  • Jul 1st, 2020 @ 8:48pm

    If you can give your 'boss' orders, they are not in charge

    If the group that you theoretically provide 'oversight' for can tell you that they don't actually feel like doing anything you ask/tell them to and get away with it then you are not providing oversight, you're just taking up space and wasting someone's money.

    While at this point the entire NYPD should be fired and brought up on charges as appropriate barring that then a decent stop-gap measure would be an agency that has both the power and the willingness to hold them accountable, handing out punishments for refusal to cooperate that hit hard enough to get them to pay attention.

  • Jul 1st, 2020 @ 4:01pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Eh, I mean some of the traits match up but Pinnochio actually wanted to get better after a certain point, whereas the individual in question here quite clearly revels in being a reprehensible loser.

    To be fair Woody(the character) has the same problems if you dig more than surface deep, as while he had his flaws he was still a decent enough person, but so long as the name is only in reference to them being a dick and their sad little life obsessing over TD I'd say it would still fit better.

  • Jul 1st, 2020 @ 3:43pm

    ... maybe?

    The wording in a few of the quotes would seem to indicate a wider range than just passwords and encompass anything that would unlock a device, but barring a ruling specifically calling out biometrics that might still be up in the air, so a password is still the better option with regards to playing it safe and in general.

    In sum, law enforcement sought to compel Seo to unlock her iPhone so that it could then scour the device for incriminating information. And Seo’s act of producing her unlocked smartphone would provide the State with information that it does not already know.

    But the State cannot fish for incriminating evidence by forcing Seo to give unfettered access to her iPhone when it has failed to show that any files on Seo’s smartphone exist or that she possessed those files.

  • Jul 1st, 2020 @ 3:13pm

    Kill it with fire

    Specifically, in that FOSTA-like carve out, the bill would allow states to enforce federal criminal laws regarding CSAM, and would allow states to set their own laws for what standard counts as the standard necessary to show that a site "knowingly" aided in the "advertisement, promotion, presentation, distribution or solicitation" of CSAM.

    So instead of one terrible federal law sites would be faced with fifty potential laws, and to play it safe they would have to follow the most restrictive, making it a moot point if other states have better standards.

    If anything that change just made it worse.

    It was a terrible bill before, it's still a terrible bill, and it still deserves the same fate, to be killed off before it can cause some real damage.

  • Jul 1st, 2020 @ 3:07pm


    Because nothing says 'we know our bill cannot withstand honest scrutiny' like making revisions at the last minute and trying to slip it through just before a holiday.

  • Jul 1st, 2020 @ 2:33pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Isn't That Why They Left Twitter

    The bans are for rules violations, not for disagreeing with the politics behind it.

    Yup, just like Twitter, glad to see you support giving the boot to rule breakers.

    That's been the prediction from many left wingers, but now we're going to actually try the experiment.

    No, you're not, because by your own definition Parler doesn't qualify as a 'free speech platform'. They have rules as to what is allowed that are more strict than legally required, the site enforces those rules, and they are absolutely kicking people off, just like previous social media platforms.

    This is why there are calls for reform, and for alternative platforms.

    Bollocks, the calls for 'reform' are because a bunch of people with persecution complexes don't like the fact that actions have consequences, and that their 'free speech content' isn't something the majority of other people care to deal with.

    Just because the corporation can do it, doesn't mean it isn't an abuse of their corporate power.

    And just because you don't like it, doesn't mean it's an abuse of power. If I owned a store I would not in any way be abusing my corporate power to set clear rules on acceptable behavior and then give the boot to those that break them.

  • Jul 1st, 2020 @ 1:56pm

    Re: Re: Isn't That Why They Left Twitter

    On Twitter though, the corporation decides, not the people.

    Who exactly do you think is handing out the bans on Parler again? Because I'm pretty sure it's not users.

    On an actual free speech platform, only the people will decide.

    In which case there never has been, nor ever will be such a platform, because it would be rendered useless in a matter of days. Your 'free speech platform' would be a complete and utter shithole that would make 4chan(a site I believe you still refuse to visit to prove your commitment to 'free speech') look like a bastion of culture and polite discourse.

    Also, the people can't hide your comment, or flag anyone's speech with special remarks.

    Once more for those with poor reading comprehension it would seem: 'Free speech' is not and never has been shorthand for 'consequence-free speech'. Just because you may be able to say something does not mean others are prohibited from responding in kind, whether that be to make use of a site's system to flag/hide content that they feel violates the rules or by adding commentary to show how and why you are wrong.

  • Jul 1st, 2020 @ 1:46pm


    As far as I know it's either explicitly exempted, or falls under federal law which is explicitly exempted, meaning the number of times 230 has actually gotten in the way of a CSAM case should be a whopping zero.

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