Wendy Cockcroft 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (1678) comment rss

  • On the post: Australian Attorney General Wants To Make The Country's Defamation Law Even Worse

    Wendy Cockcroft ( profile ), 27 Nov, 2019 @ 03:37am

    Re:

    Indeed. If a defamation law basically forbids criticism of individuals and groups based on butthurt alone, it's a bad law. And it would silence a lot of speech.

  • On the post: Australian Attorney General Wants To Make The Country's Defamation Law Even Worse

    Wendy Cockcroft ( profile ), 27 Nov, 2019 @ 03:35am

    Re:

    And I foresee many a politician scrambling to backtrack or seeking exemptions, pronto.

  • On the post: Australian Attorney General Wants To Make The Country's Defamation Law Even Worse

    Wendy Cockcroft ( profile ), 27 Nov, 2019 @ 03:34am

    Re: Re:

    What, butthurt lotion? Okay, I can see that. What'd be the active ingredient? THC? Opioids? Cocaine derivatives?

  • On the post: Australian Attorney General Wants To Make The Country's Defamation Law Even Worse

    Wendy Cockcroft ( profile ), 27 Nov, 2019 @ 03:32am

    Re: Re:

    Someone who is defamed every time they are "Googled" can seek refuge in Australia, because the search engines are stubborn that way. They could just remove the content globally. That is way beyond nonsensical. Get help! People aren't defamed when someone looks them up. People are defamed when someone posts lies about them that causes actual harm, e.g. loss of earnings. What you're proposing is a business model based on trolling search engines for butthurt money. No.

  • On the post: Australian Attorney General Wants To Make The Country's Defamation Law Even Worse

    Wendy Cockcroft ( profile ), 27 Nov, 2019 @ 03:29am

    Re:

    Anyone defamed in the US can currently move to AUS and retire on what they'd win in a lawsuit against the search engines, or they can just hire a lawyer to do it for them there. Unless they could prove actual harm, good luck with that. As I pointed out earlier, there would be no payola for me. I didn't lose my job, I got promoted shortly afterwards because I was able to prove it was a troll post. If that person who helped to spread it by blogging about me hadn't screenshotted the email she received from the troll, I'd have had little in the way of evidence that I'd been targeted by a troll. She did more to exonerate me than anything else I could get hold of.

  • On the post: Australian Attorney General Wants To Make The Country's Defamation Law Even Worse

    Wendy Cockcroft ( profile ), 27 Nov, 2019 @ 03:24am

    Re: Re:

    The google search is distribution of the libel, and the cause of the harm, as the employer/whoever wouldn't have found the libel without the search engine. Look up "distributor liability." The distribution is by the person uploading the libel. What you're suggesting would mean we couldn't have search engines any more in case some chump posted defamatory statements somewhere. At least, they would be blocked in countries with such stupid laws. See Spain's loss of Google services for details. It -could- happen. The threat of being sued by their ISP or Google will stop people from defaming others. The old saying "If you can't say something nice about someone, don't say anything at all" is very sound legal advice. That's assuming they'd be easy to find. Given that foreign laws don't apply in America you can expect companies based there to tell Google to go pound sand. It gets even more complicated if the defamer used a burner .ru email address at an internet cafe so can't be traced. Or the defamer is based in another country. Of course any (hypothetical) lawyers who have made a mint by invoking SLAPP and Section 230 (any resemblance to actual lawyers who have done this and are fans of this site is purely coincidental) might not like laws like this but oh well. The loss of a functional search engine may be a sacrifice you're willing to make. The rest of us, not so much. And you're forgetting that libel and defamation laws differ throughout the globe. So unless that One World Government the mad conspiracy theorists area always wibbling on about actually happens, good luck with getting your idea from stupid fantasy to reality. Bear in mind that all the nasty things you've ever said about anyone would come back to bite you very hard on the bum. Individual reputations can be protected very easily by search engines once they have a reason to do so. Right now this is viewed as acceptable loss to some, but obviously not to Australia. The protection of your reputation is on you alone. If you can't understand that behaving badly makes you look bad, that ain't my problem. Remember, when a troll came after me to ruin my reputation, what saved me was that I simply don't and never have behaved that way, and don't intend to. Ever. Horrible comments and outright lies have no effect on the innocent, as my personal experience has proved. Actual harm done: zero. So even if I did know who the troll was or how to get hold of him, I'd have no standing to sue for that reason. I'd be wasting my money if I tried. Even the Australian courts would throw it out due to lack of proven harm. Ruth Bader Ginsburg said that foreign law should influence American law, even if it is not precedential. Circuits often turn to other circuits, and states to other states, for the same reason. I'm sure she did, but at no point should foreign laws take precedent over American ones. Anything that messes with the First Amendment won't get over the line. Don't forget that.

  • On the post: Australian Attorney General Wants To Make The Country's Defamation Law Even Worse

    Wendy Cockcroft ( profile ), 27 Nov, 2019 @ 02:53am

    Re: Re: Re:

    Given all the threats, defamatory comments, and such, Jhon.

  • On the post: Australian Attorney General Wants To Make The Country's Defamation Law Even Worse

    Wendy Cockcroft ( profile ), 27 Nov, 2019 @ 02:50am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: I guess this means that…

    Search engines have already been held liable for results under the distributor-liability theory in countries which don't have 230, and in America prior to 230. The liability certainly exists or we wouldn't have needed to immunize it. In no way at all does that mean it should. This is going after money rather than the person who posted the defamatory comments. That's why they do it. Next time I see you going on about personal responsibility I'm going to fling this in your e-face.

  • On the post: This Week In Free Speech Hypocrites: 'Free Speech' Supporter Sheila Gunn Reid Gleefully Sues Someone For Calling Her A Neo-Nazi

    Wendy Cockcroft ( profile ), 26 Nov, 2019 @ 03:29am

    Re: ButButBut....

    Yep. That's about the size of it. I'll add "liar" to "hypocrite" for the about-turn.

  • On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt

    Wendy Cockcroft ( profile ), 26 Nov, 2019 @ 03:16am

    Re: Partisan Hypocrisy

    Wrong. Obama didn't create it, and presidents are allowed to set policy. DACA was formally initiated by a policy memorandum sent from Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano to the heads of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). The memo formally directed them to exercise their enforcement discretion on behalf of individuals who met the requirements.[40] - Wikipedia The Republicans are a funny lot, per the same source: Nearly all Republicans in the House of Representatives (along with three Democrats) voted 224–201 to defund DACA in June 2013.[37] Lead author of the amendment Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) stated, "The point here is ... the President does not have the authority to waive immigration law, nor does he have the authority to create it out of thin air, and he's done both with these Morton memos in this respect." Trump did the exact same thing with his bans on Muslim travellers from countries he doesn't have hotels in. He waived it and created it out of thin air, and like Obama before him he was taken to court for it and lost. I'm not a mad fan of Obama, for the record, but he was less horrible than Trump. This might interest you: Research has shown that DACA increased the wages and labor force participation of DACA-eligible immigrants[6][7][8] and reduced the number of undocumented immigrant households living in poverty.[12] Studies have also shown that DACA increased the mental health outcomes for DACA-eligible immigrants and their children.[9][10][11] There are no known major adverse impacts from DACA on native-born workers' employment, and most economists say that DACA benefits the U.S. economy. So... you have a large population of undocumented immigrants; it's impossible to deport the lot of them (it's been tried), and it gets more complicated when their kids are birthright citizens. What do you do apart from providing a legal pathway to citizenship for those who behave well and don't cause problems?

  • On the post: Sacha Baron Cohen Is Wrong About Social Media, Wrong About Section 230… And Even Wrong About His Own Comedy

    Wendy Cockcroft ( profile ), 26 Nov, 2019 @ 03:01am

    Re: Re: ("Rapeutation") is when you threaten to rape others

    A failed extortion attempt. Losing 230 would mean no review site could exist. Yelp, etc., will remove fake posts if you can prove they're fake. You lied again.

  • On the post: Sacha Baron Cohen Is Wrong About Social Media, Wrong About Section 230… And Even Wrong About His Own Comedy

    Wendy Cockcroft ( profile ), 25 Nov, 2019 @ 08:05am

    Re: Re: Re: the internet, cameras and everything

    Why can’t we hold companies liable for creating environments in which people posting garbage are incentivized and rewarded, then? Social media platforms that fine-tune their algorithms, interfaces, and systems of sharing and liking for engagement above all else, knowingly allowing garbage to thrive on their platform, and inevitably “apologize” like they’re a BP exec after the unchecked spread of garbage is brought to light by the press or a catastrophe should be made to suffer some sort of actual consequences. What, like Fox and Breitbart? Don't you know they tend to skew for what plays best with their audiences, in order to drive up ratings? Or do you live beneath a rock?

  • On the post: Sacha Baron Cohen Is Wrong About Social Media, Wrong About Section 230… And Even Wrong About His Own Comedy

    Wendy Cockcroft ( profile ), 25 Nov, 2019 @ 06:10am

    Re:

    This ignores the separate harm created by distributing (spreading) libel far beyond its original audience, into a permanent internet archive in a search engine. The purpose of 230 is to immunize companies who inflict the harm, which is now unchecked and people weaponize search engines against individuals and businesses who have no recourse. Anyone who supports 230 is saying that these are acceptable losses, but that makes them sound awful, so they pretend the harm does not exist. I've already told you my story many times. Wrong on all counts per my personal experience. The harm obviously exists, or AUS courts would not find against search engines for what they republish. The "person who actually broke the law" is one of many who break the law. Even worse is that if we allow lies to stay online, someone could make a fortune by suing anyone who repeats the defamation, who of course would be to blame for believing what they read online. In the AUS case, people were complaining about an individual's behaviour and sharing their opinions on what sort of person they thought she was. The court found Google responsible for linking to the complaints about court-documented behaviour. Since 230 immunizes websites against false-advertising lawsuits, one cannot trust advertising they find online, either, as that can be placed by an LLC with no assets that disappears, or even with fake third-party marketing that rewards lies. So what? It's the advertiser who's at fault, not the search engine. Section 230 has destroyed truth particularly about individuals and businesses because even one person with a grudge can weaponize the entire internet as the very type of propaganda tool Cohen warns about. Wrong, wrong, wrong, per my own experience. Why are you ignoring this truth? Section 230 is on its last legs due to abuses by those laughing kids on 4Chan and others like them. Prove it, liar.

  • On the post: Alexander Vindman Now Threatens Bogus SLAPP Suit Against Fox News & Laura Ingraham

    Wendy Cockcroft ( profile ), 25 Nov, 2019 @ 03:33am

    Re: Re:

    I don't think it's fair to hide baseless allegations behind "opinion." If that were true I'd be legally able to accuse everyone of the vilest crimes and get clean away with it by tacking "In my opinion" on to the end of every lying sentence. That doesn't seem right to me. Yoo accused the man of espionage. He should be sued into the bloody ground.

  • On the post: Former Devin Nunes' Aide Uses Nunes' Lawyer To File SLAPP Suit Against Politico

    Wendy Cockcroft ( profile ), 25 Nov, 2019 @ 03:29am

    Re:

    1. Politico reported what the "dirty rotten liars" said. Reportage, not actual malice.
    2. Litigant doesn't specify what the "lies" were, or show that they were lies. Burden of proof is on the litigant to prove they were lies AND that they were directly harmful.
    3. Go after the ACTUAL offender, not the reporter of the offence.
    4. None of the "defenses" for Trump or any of his staff members or supporters hold up under scrutiny. They're all misdirection and attacks on the source rather than on the actual content, so can be dismissed.

  • On the post: Lawyer With Neo-Nazi Ties Loses Defamation Lawsuit Against SPLC For Calling Him A Neo-Nazi

    Wendy Cockcroft ( profile ), 25 Nov, 2019 @ 03:18am

    Re:

    Idiots are. They target me from time to time but I send them packing. Thank you for giving me more ammo to use against them.

  • On the post: Should The Big Tech Companies Voluntarily Fund The Journalism Business?

    Wendy Cockcroft ( profile ), 25 Nov, 2019 @ 02:50am

    Re:

    Prove it or GTHO.

  • On the post: Should The Big Tech Companies Voluntarily Fund The Journalism Business?

    Wendy Cockcroft ( profile ), 22 Nov, 2019 @ 07:35am

    Re:

    Indeed. I think it was The Times that failed to do any due dilligence on HSBC - a major advertiser. It just ignored all negative stories about it.

  • On the post: Should The Big Tech Companies Voluntarily Fund The Journalism Business?

    Wendy Cockcroft ( profile ), 22 Nov, 2019 @ 07:33am

    Re:

    I think if the newspapers, etc., are so intent on sharing in the success of tech companies, why not buy shares in them? That way they share in the profits without trying to "fine" them for using links and snippets in an aggregator.

  • On the post: Masnick's Impossibility Theorem: Content Moderation At Scale Is Impossible To Do Well

    Wendy Cockcroft ( profile ), 22 Nov, 2019 @ 07:28am

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

    I've seen stories of people marrying buildings, horses, dogs, cats... life without pictures is going to be very boring.

Next >>