tz1 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (191) comment rss

  • Giving People Property Rights In Data Will Not Solve Privacy, But…

    tz1 ( profile ), 01 Jun, 2020 @ 08:06pm

    A simpler solution

    REQUIRE an option where they don't track, monitize, distribute, etc. your data or even use it to "provide a better experience" tier which is paid. Right now there is only the "free except you agree to give your soul to the devil when you die" contract. You can't pay Apple, Google, Amazon, F**kbook to not privacy rape you, that is not an option. Reminds me of the old Bertrand Russel joke: BR: Would you go to bed with me for $1Million? woman: well,... yes I would. BR: Would you do it for $5? (early 20th century) woman: What do you think I am? BR: Madame, we have established what you are, we only disagree about the price. I can fly, if I let the TSA grope my "junk" and be porn scanned. Completely voluntary. Or charter a private Jet (why can't they crash into Trump Tower?).

  • California Anti-SLAPP Law Gives Rachel Maddow An Early Exit From Conservative News Network's Bogus Libel Lawsuit

    tz1 ( profile ), 01 Jun, 2020 @ 04:27pm

    Not quite, SLAPP gave her asylum

    The court found she is not a reporter or anyone dealing with facts but a clown that spews nonsense and everyone knows it and you can't be held to account for insane rantings.

  • Let. The Motherfucker. Burn.

    tz1 ( profile ), 01 Jun, 2020 @ 04:25pm

    You world

    It reminds me of Heath Ledger's joker burning a pile of money saying "My half!". I hope your world burns since you say that is what you want. Your loved ones, relatives and friends die in the flames. The rest die of famines and only the ashes are left so no repairations can be made. As the flames rose high into the night to light the sacrificial rite I saw Satan laughing with delight the day the Music died. I have been and will continue to try to make My world free. I resent your envy in wanting to burn down my free world because it is easier to destroy than to build. Envy is the only sin that gives no joy. It does not seek to achieve anything but to destroy what others have including happiness and joy. "Misery loves company and by Satan I will make the whole world miserable!" I live in a small town. In a state where I looked for liberty. I think there has been ONE mention of any police problem in the last 5 years. Police are still "officer friendly". But I don't have much real privacy. Everyone knows each other, but that means the Cops know me and I know them. The local cops in NJ wouldn't shut down the Gym so they brought some in from another precinct. You may love the big city and its life - and its anonymity. But that works both ways. You don't know and probably never met the people who owned the businesses that were destroyed along with their hopes and dreams and their life savings. Their hopes, dreams, and life savings are what you want to burn down. Not the police who will survive and probably thrive with the increased powers after the chaos like we still have the TSA. When you wish to see the world burn, you are calling for your own self immolation.

  • Let. The Motherfucker. Burn.

    tz1 ( profile ), 01 Jun, 2020 @ 04:25pm

    You world

    It reminds me of Heath Ledger's joker burning a pile of money saying "My half!". I hope your world burns since you say that is what you want. Your loved ones, relatives and friends die in the flames. The rest die of famines and only the ashes are left so no repairations can be made. As the flames rose high into the night to light the sacrificial rite I saw Satan laughing with delight the day the Music died. I have been and will continue to try to make My world free. I resent your envy in wanting to burn down my free world because it is easier to destroy than to build. Envy is the only sin that gives no joy. It does not seek to achieve anything but to destroy what others have including happiness and joy. "Misery loves company and by Satan I will make the whole world miserable!" I live in a small town. In a state where I looked for liberty. I think there has been ONE mention of any police problem in the last 5 years. Police are still "officer friendly". But I don't have much real privacy. Everyone knows each other, but that means the Cops know me and I know them. The local cops in NJ wouldn't shut down the Gym so they brought some in from another precinct. You may love the big city and its life - and its anonymity. But that works both ways. You don't know and probably never met the people who owned the businesses that were destroyed along with their hopes and dreams and their life savings. Their hopes, dreams, and life savings are what you want to burn down. Not the police who will survive and probably thrive with the increased powers after the chaos like we still have the TSA. When you wish to see the world burn, you are calling for your own self immolation.

  • Let. The Motherfucker. Burn.

    tz1 ( profile ), 01 Jun, 2020 @ 04:10pm

    misdirection

    Currently: It is better that 100 unarmed innocent people die than one cop not be able to get home safely because they hesitated. You didn't mention Breonna Taylor. Or Duncan Lemp. Or Daniel Shaver. Or Andrew Finch (twitter tie in). Or a hundred others I can name. They are just as dead, only it was in a few seconds instead of several minutes. Qualified Immunity. "I was in fear for my life". Magic words that make responsibility go away. The problem isn't white privilege, its blue supremacy.

  • Let. The Motherfucker. Burn.

    tz1 ( profile ), 01 Jun, 2020 @ 04:10pm

    misdirection

    Currently: It is better that 100 unarmed innocent people die than one cop not be able to get home safely because they hesitated. You didn't mention Breonna Taylor. Or Duncan Lemp. Or Daniel Shaver. Or Andrew Finch (twitter tie in). Or a hundred others I can name. They are just as dead, only it was in a few seconds instead of several minutes. Qualified Immunity. "I was in fear for my life". Magic words that make responsibility go away. The problem isn't white privilege, its blue supremacy.

  • No, Twitter Fact Checking The President Is Not Evidence Of Anti-Conservative Bias

    tz1 ( profile ), 29 May, 2020 @ 03:35pm

    Re:

    Name any example of someone from CNN, MSNBC, or the Democratic Party being "fact checked" by Twitter. Name a prominet lefty banned (e.g. Kathy Griffin for Trump's severed head). Sarah Jeong posted tweets which were anti-white bigotry and they AFAIK are still up. Candace Owens just swapped the word "black" for "white" and every one was banned and she had her account locked. Put simply, if they "fact checked" Maxine Waters, Cuomo, Pelosi, Schumer, Schiff, AOC, Illan Omar, Rashida Talib, etc. over the Russiagate and Ukrainegate hoax or even the Michael Flynn railroading, and also did Trump no one would be complaining. If they banned Dan Savage when they banned Milo no one would be complaining. Here's a simple experiment. Create two twitter accounts. Post a tweet to each of them, calling for violence, using epithets, being offensive, but swap targets - men v.s. women, white v.s. black, gay v.s. straight. If you are correct Twitter will consistently apply something to both or neither. If Conservatives are correct, only one set of tweets will be marked or deleted.

  • Trump's Final Executive Order On Social Media Deliberately Removed Reference To Importance Of Newspapers To Democracy

    tz1 ( profile ), 29 May, 2020 @ 03:59pm

    Newspapers WERE important

    Now there are only a few huge media congolmerates so almost every paper is the USA Today, as well as the radio stations and TV. Especially in small markets. We must keep the scriptoria and buggy whip makers in business. Meanwhile, people like Tim Pool (TimCast) are the new media.

  • Trump's Final Executive Order On Social Media Deliberately Removed Reference To Importance Of Newspapers To Democracy

    tz1 ( profile ), 29 May, 2020 @ 03:59pm

    Newspapers WERE important

    Now there are only a few huge media congolmerates so almost every paper is the USA Today, as well as the radio stations and TV. Especially in small markets. We must keep the scriptoria and buggy whip makers in business. Meanwhile, people like Tim Pool (TimCast) are the new media.

  • No, Twitter Fact Checking The President Is Not Evidence Of Anti-Conservative Bias

    tz1 ( profile ), 29 May, 2020 @ 03:35pm

    Re:

    Name any example of someone from CNN, MSNBC, or the Democratic Party being "fact checked" by Twitter. Name a prominet lefty banned (e.g. Kathy Griffin for Trump's severed head). Sarah Jeong posted tweets which were anti-white bigotry and they AFAIK are still up. Candace Owens just swapped the word "black" for "white" and every one was banned and she had her account locked. Put simply, if they "fact checked" Maxine Waters, Cuomo, Pelosi, Schumer, Schiff, AOC, Illan Omar, Rashida Talib, etc. over the Russiagate and Ukrainegate hoax or even the Michael Flynn railroading, and also did Trump no one would be complaining. If they banned Dan Savage when they banned Milo no one would be complaining. Here's a simple experiment. Create two twitter accounts. Post a tweet to each of them, calling for violence, using epithets, being offensive, but swap targets - men v.s. women, white v.s. black, gay v.s. straight. If you are correct Twitter will consistently apply something to both or neither. If Conservatives are correct, only one set of tweets will be marked or deleted.

  • Moderation v. Discretion v. Censorship: They're Not The Same

    tz1 ( profile ), 28 May, 2020 @ 05:45pm

    one stone, two birds

    https://pjmedia.com/election/jeff-reynolds/2020/05/28/twitter-suspends-oregon-account-my-vote-changed-after-claims-of-mail-in-ballot-errors-n441548 Twitter just censored an account dedicated to reports of mail in ballot fraud.

  • Moderation v. Discretion v. Censorship: They're Not The Same

    tz1 ( profile ), 28 May, 2020 @ 05:45pm

    one stone, two birds

    https://pjmedia.com/election/jeff-reynolds/2020/05/28/twitter-suspends-oregon-account-my-vote-changed-after-claims-of-mail-in-ballot-errors-n441548 Twitter just censored an account dedicated to reports of mail in ballot fraud.

  • Moderation v. Discretion v. Censorship: They're Not The Same

    tz1 ( profile ), 28 May, 2020 @ 04:21pm

    Then there's DCMA notices

    Ask Michael Moore if his 4 seconds of use of some film the original author used to file a takedown notice causing his movie to be taken down is censorship. It happens much more commonly and there are people who simply troll the DCMA report box to take things down for a day or two and just force the people to respond. This is also a serious problem but also "content moderation". Because someone with a gmail account which has only existed for 20 minutes says it violates their copyright, we must remove your content.

  • Moderation v. Discretion v. Censorship: They're Not The Same

    tz1 ( profile ), 28 May, 2020 @ 04:21pm

    Then there's DCMA notices

    Ask Michael Moore if his 4 seconds of use of some film the original author used to file a takedown notice causing his movie to be taken down is censorship. It happens much more commonly and there are people who simply troll the DCMA report box to take things down for a day or two and just force the people to respond. This is also a serious problem but also "content moderation". Because someone with a gmail account which has only existed for 20 minutes says it violates their copyright, we must remove your content.

  • Moderation v. Discretion v. Censorship: They're Not The Same

    tz1 ( profile ), 28 May, 2020 @ 04:11pm

    We don't do what exactly?

    So when someone posts something which is offensive, and a mob then doxxes them, gets them fired, has their bank and/or payment processor, their ISP, their hosting service drop them, how is that not "censorship"? Then there's the problem that "We DO do that around here, except to X", take the tweets that get banned when you simply s/white/black/g. In the above post, note how it is someone who is uncomfortable with LGBTQ, not someone like Dan Savage who said worse in public at a conference showing what by the reciprocal standards would be anti-Christian bigoted hate speech. The upside is the war is now open instead of a slow attrition where Alex Jones gets banned but not Rachel Maddow. Milo but not Savage. The second great thing to come from this is the nonsense like the post above trying to use reason and proper argument when everything is about hurting someone's feelings, and the accuracy of the post isn't relevant, or isn't even contested but belittled or condemned. Take the current cause. There ARE lots of opportunities for fraud in "Mail In Ballots". They can be mitigated with strong voter-ID laws (including a signature sample that must match the ballot), bans on ballot harvesting, and have the postal inspectors and USPS secure the mail in path. The problem is we can't have that discussion. If we could the above points would be the response to Trump, not "Fact Check: False - see these CNN and NBC #FakeNews articles". Also note the controversy over Mail In Ballots doesn't even come close to talking about hate speech, yet that, something which should not be about feelings, is the cause. Is Trump calling for the slaughter of Gay people like Ric Grenell or Milo? Well, maybe you don't see any difference. Me: Come, let us reason together and discuss and debate, using reason and evidence without getting personal or profane. You: We don't do that around here.

  • Moderation v. Discretion v. Censorship: They're Not The Same

    tz1 ( profile ), 28 May, 2020 @ 04:11pm

    We don't do what exactly?

    So when someone posts something which is offensive, and a mob then doxxes them, gets them fired, has their bank and/or payment processor, their ISP, their hosting service drop them, how is that not "censorship"? Then there's the problem that "We DO do that around here, except to X", take the tweets that get banned when you simply s/white/black/g. In the above post, note how it is someone who is uncomfortable with LGBTQ, not someone like Dan Savage who said worse in public at a conference showing what by the reciprocal standards would be anti-Christian bigoted hate speech. The upside is the war is now open instead of a slow attrition where Alex Jones gets banned but not Rachel Maddow. Milo but not Savage. The second great thing to come from this is the nonsense like the post above trying to use reason and proper argument when everything is about hurting someone's feelings, and the accuracy of the post isn't relevant, or isn't even contested but belittled or condemned. Take the current cause. There ARE lots of opportunities for fraud in "Mail In Ballots". They can be mitigated with strong voter-ID laws (including a signature sample that must match the ballot), bans on ballot harvesting, and have the postal inspectors and USPS secure the mail in path. The problem is we can't have that discussion. If we could the above points would be the response to Trump, not "Fact Check: False - see these CNN and NBC #FakeNews articles". Also note the controversy over Mail In Ballots doesn't even come close to talking about hate speech, yet that, something which should not be about feelings, is the cause. Is Trump calling for the slaughter of Gay people like Ric Grenell or Milo? Well, maybe you don't see any difference. Me: Come, let us reason together and discuss and debate, using reason and evidence without getting personal or profane. You: We don't do that around here.

  • When The Problem Isn't Twitter But President Trump

    tz1 ( profile ), 27 May, 2020 @ 06:59pm

    Do you agree...

    With Kathy Griffin that suggested he be killed by an air embolism in a Tweet and doubled down? Realize that Trump won, you lost. Maybe if you attempted to understand WHY instead of quintupling down we could have a rational conversation instead of you and TD (Trump Deranged) spreading far more toxic vitriol than Trump does. Trump is only one man. You have the people at CNN, MSNBC, comics, Hollywood throwing far more AT Trump than he throws back. You should call out that hate if you don't think hate is proper.

  • When The Problem Isn't Twitter But President Trump

    tz1 ( profile ), 27 May, 2020 @ 06:59pm

    Do you agree...

    With Kathy Griffin that suggested he be killed by an air embolism in a Tweet and doubled down? Realize that Trump won, you lost. Maybe if you attempted to understand WHY instead of quintupling down we could have a rational conversation instead of you and TD (Trump Deranged) spreading far more toxic vitriol than Trump does. Trump is only one man. You have the people at CNN, MSNBC, comics, Hollywood throwing far more AT Trump than he throws back. You should call out that hate if you don't think hate is proper.

  • Introducing The Tech Policy Greenhouse: Let's Have Thoughtful Conversations About The Biggest Tech Policy Challenges

    tz1 ( profile ), 27 May, 2020 @ 02:04pm

    Really?

    Such a discussion is very important and I fall on the libertarian side of things. But I don't think that is what you want if your other articles are any indication. What is the point of yet another "Orange Man Bad!" forum? Expert echo chamber? My opinions are orthognal to both sides on most occasions, and more subtle. I usually find my self burned as a heretic. Consider "privacy". I posted about Anonymity. But that would interfere with targeted ads. Google (and Apple) maintain IDs, and I trust neither, but they don't fund the EFF to create a cryptographic persistent pseudonym system. Instead they use web bugs, javascript fingerprinting and other tracking. (TD - I really like some of the products you email me in your deals, but instead of any page or any easy way to find them on your deals site I get a tracking site; the cost to my privacy is too high a price). I go back to the PGP export wars during the 1990s on that (I go back further, but we are talking privacy). There are both legal and technical challenges. And they could be worked out. I don't think anyone really wants to do so if it will give "the other side" an advantage, or will demonitize Google who decided to be evil - Avarice is a deadly sin - and go full China but under a layer of virtue signalling.

  • Introducing The Tech Policy Greenhouse: Let's Have Thoughtful Conversations About The Biggest Tech Policy Challenges

    tz1 ( profile ), 27 May, 2020 @ 02:04pm

    Really?

    Such a discussion is very important and I fall on the libertarian side of things. But I don't think that is what you want if your other articles are any indication. What is the point of yet another "Orange Man Bad!" forum? Expert echo chamber? My opinions are orthognal to both sides on most occasions, and more subtle. I usually find my self burned as a heretic. Consider "privacy". I posted about Anonymity. But that would interfere with targeted ads. Google (and Apple) maintain IDs, and I trust neither, but they don't fund the EFF to create a cryptographic persistent pseudonym system. Instead they use web bugs, javascript fingerprinting and other tracking. (TD - I really like some of the products you email me in your deals, but instead of any page or any easy way to find them on your deals site I get a tracking site; the cost to my privacy is too high a price). I go back to the PGP export wars during the 1990s on that (I go back further, but we are talking privacy). There are both legal and technical challenges. And they could be worked out. I don't think anyone really wants to do so if it will give "the other side" an advantage, or will demonitize Google who decided to be evil - Avarice is a deadly sin - and go full China but under a layer of virtue signalling.

Next >>