trollificus’s Techdirt Profile


About trollificus

trollificus’s Comments comment rss

  • Nov 17th, 2017 @ 5:09am

    Re: Re:

    But look out! This time he's got out the greatest tool of perceptive, thoughtful analysts everywhere: sarcasm.

  • Nov 17th, 2017 @ 5:07am


    If Google and Facebook and Comcast and Verizon and AT&T being huge and powerful is a problem, why isn't it a problem for the huge and powerful "permanent government" that's currently in place?

    What's that? Our government is made up of well-meaning, decent folk who want what's best for the country and its citziens?

    Senatores boni viri, senatus autem mala bestia

  • Nov 17th, 2017 @ 4:48am

    Re: waste of time?

    Not entirely a waste of time, as it points out basic contradictions that will almost certainly be duplicated in speeches and positions of other Congresscretins. As such, it could be a time-saver.

    And he, Al Franken, having been on the side of the angels for so long, and his infraction so clearly on the minor side of the scale of such things (brutal rape being on one end, ogling and hugging on the other, even though there seems to be some insistence that they are all the same), will be forgiven and allowed to continue with his good works...though none of them seem to involve the internet.

  • Nov 17th, 2017 @ 4:37am

    Re: Al Franken, hater of big.

    "Da Congress of Fools"

    OR Confederacy of Dunces, or Parliament of Whores, the latter from PJ O'Rourkes' surprisingly even-handed 'explanation' of how our government works. Actually depressingly accurate, if shorter on flame and vitriol that I would have liked.

  • Nov 17th, 2017 @ 4:34am

    "Why Are People Celebrating..."

    Nice job fisking the speech, though with such glaring contradictions, it was kind of low-hanging fruit. Franken has to be smarter than this, doesn't he? I mean, elementary logic and basic rhetoric preclude seriously presenting this mish-mash as serious thought.

    But to answer the article title question: Because they see this speech as a sign that someone in the fedgov finally "gets it". They DO want control over what FB and Google allow to be presented to the public, they DO want only "good" content (by their deliberately opaque, and constantly shifting definition) promoted and they DO want "bad" content (again, by their shifting, self-serving definition) blocked.

    We've already seen how "hate" gets expanded to include even the most fact-based and nuanced examinations of Islam, and how, in the matter of anti-scientific GMO alarmism, people who accept the science are somehow lumped in with "climate deniers" (to the point where sweet ol' Bill Nye advocated jailing them for their opinions. nice).

    It isn't the size of the tool, it's the use to which it's put that concerns me, and should concern everyone. The existence of such powerful tools, with governments' twitchy hand hovering above them, should cause people to examine the results of EVERY PREVIOUS EXAMPLE where the government controlled what people read and heard and saw. It has never been "for their own good", and always for "tightening our hold on power".

    I suspect that to him, Al Franken, and his cheerleaders, this case is obviously different, because their own virtuousness is so vigorously and constantly signalled back-and-forth. I am less sanguine.

  • Nov 14th, 2017 @ 6:49am

    Re: Re: Question: What happens if you just say no to having your stuff taken?

    Probably would depend on how you presented your argument. I can see some ways getting you arrested, not for anything to do with the money they were gonna steal, but for 'resisting'.

    You MIGHT be able to calmly and clearly register your position without provoking them to do any more that just...going ahead and stealing ur stuff anyway.

  • Nov 14th, 2017 @ 6:45am

    Re: Re:

    Sadly, I can see this as being one actual example of police discriminating by race, ethnicity, etc. If I were a police, looking to get free shit, I'd ignore the white people in nice cars...sure, they got money, but it's not right with them in the car. Cop can't walk away with their money.

    Ah, but look at the percentages of people (by race) who are, as they say "unbanked", who deal in cash that is NOT produced by the drug trade...THEY might be worth a "license plate light's out" traffic stop.

    Unlike some other complaints about police profiling and stuff, THIS is an actual abuse actually visited disproportionately on "marginalized groups".

  • Nov 14th, 2017 @ 6:38am


    lol. Well, it IS a way to get the boys in blue to contribute more to their generous, often-inflated, pensions. A nasty, cynical way that is abusive of the very people they are supposed to serve, but I can see the attraction for politicians looking at the unfunded portion of their pension obligations.

    And really, people in New York elect the politicians who give this kind of thing to them. Good and hard.

  • Nov 14th, 2017 @ 6:03am


    "That does seem to be the accepted standard in our courts when those charged with writing the laws are ignorant, corrupt and lazy."

    The greatest delusion that I see in our courts is the one where judges pretend Congress is actually capable of writing clear legislation, even when they aren't just rubberstamping lobbyists work, and that "redress from a misperforming legislative branch" is actually available through the electoral process.

  • Oct 1st, 2017 @ 6:15am

    Re: Re: Not to worry

    I know this is a dated, and therefore somewhat quixotic response, but how can you fail to have noticed that all previous efforts to "get money out of politics" have resulted in what can only be called an "Incumbent Protection Act".

    Until science can devise a "pie-in-the-sky to electricity conversion device", "money out of politics" is not a solution.

  • Sep 17th, 2017 @ 2:01pm

    (untitled comment)

    "shut up, it's not racist. It's just not."

    Sorry, Mr. Geigner. Because of the weaponized re-definition of the word "racist", it is now the case that only the *accused* can say what's racist, or what they mean when they make the accusation.

    The Internet has reached new record lows in unproductive discourse when you see A telling B that what B said didn't mean what he thought it did because A defines a word differently, and B telling A that what HE said didn't mean what he thought he said because he doesn't really think that (false consciousness). I know. Inconceivable, right?

  • Sep 17th, 2017 @ 1:49pm


    I know, right? It's like they're unaware that Florida is already the Florida of the United States. No amount of corruption, stupidity or bizarre behavior will overcome Florida (the REAL Florida, site of all "That has to have been in Florida, amirite? Am I?" speculations) for that "honor".

  • Sep 14th, 2017 @ 8:43am

    Re: Re: Re: Angry cop

    My oh my, so harsh. I say, after being "fired, prosecuted and serving time", in recognition of his years of fine service, the citizens if Terrebonne could help him out by placing the rock upon him. With vigor!!

  • Sep 6th, 2017 @ 8:57pm


    Our legal system seldom closes off avenues for lawyers to make money. Just sayin'...

  • Sep 6th, 2017 @ 8:51pm

    Re: Re: Shiva Will Appeal

    Well, if this is also draining Shivas' resources that might otherwise go towards his political ambitions, it cuts both ways.

    Also, fingers crossed that he ends up paying the TD legal fees. That would be a wonderful reward for his persistence, aight?

  • Sep 6th, 2017 @ 8:45pm

    Re: Oh, rats! -- Er, I mean, congRATSulation!

    You comments are available, and considering they have about as much value as the "Click here to see how I earn $3487.32 per week!" posts that are so ubiquitous on the internet, I appreciate the option to pass over them.

  • Sep 6th, 2017 @ 8:25pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    " doesn't look very good for him and/or his lawyer."

    Well, it looks like billable hours to his legal firm, so, no problem there.

    Anyway, congrats on the win. Just wondering how this never got to the part where it became relevant to the case that he IS delusional, IS a liar and IS a race-baiting reprobate. That should all be put on public record somewhere, I think.

  • Mar 30th, 2017 @ 9:41pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    It's ALWAYS more profitable to collude than to compete.

    Though there does exist the inexplicable race-to-the-bottom competition to become the most-hated/"best customer raping" company in the country. I suspect the execs just engage in that for funsies, though.

  • Mar 30th, 2017 @ 8:19pm

    (untitled comment)

    Sorry if this has been dealt with above, but...

    "Of course the sudden realization that government oversight of giant, anti-competitive corporations is sometimes necessary and even good for consumers has arrived a little late for most of us."

    Umm...the problems which you so eagerly and smugly require government regulation, specifically the lack of competition in the broadband space, ARE CREATED BY OTHER GOVERNMENT ACTIONS. There is no "capitalist" or "market forces" or "invisible hand" to debunk or ridicule.

    Perhaps if you were saying (accurately), "We need SOME government regulations to protect us from the government selling out to corporate lobbying efforts." it would be easier to see how bullshit your "proof" of the need for more government regulation actually is. Or maybe not.

  • Mar 28th, 2017 @ 3:37pm


    May all the people who worked in 20th Century-style A&R for the labels can become cab drivers instead. Ohh...

More comments from trollificus >>