Wyrm’s Techdirt Profile

wyrm

About Wyrm




Wyrm’s Comments comment rss

  • Jun 29th, 2021 @ 12:45pm

    Re: Re: Re: Wrym

    That might be, but it's a poor excuse.

    First, we don't need a high-level of detail, even a generic category of rule violation is fine. Something like "sexual content", "incitement to violence", etc.
    Preferably quoting or linking to the exact content at fault.

    Second, sports have precise rules. Communities have precise laws. Why wouldn't social platforms be able to do the same? Bad people will try to get around them. Of course they will. But that shouldn't and - in other cases - doesn't stop the rules from being as precise as possible.

    If you give up on this, you might as well not pretend to have rules at all. Secret rules and secret reasons amount to the same as pure arbitrary ones.

  • Jun 24th, 2021 @ 4:22pm

    (untitled comment)

    I don't like this kind of resolution.
    You don't know why it happened in the first place. ("A mistake" doesn't explain anything.)
    You don't know how it was solved in the end. (You don't have any more reason for the account being restored than you got for the account getting suspended.)

    I'm a software developer and there is one thing I hate above even obnoxious customers: a bug that appears in one of my products, then disappears by itself before we can find its source.

    And the reason I hate both of these things is the same: they can and probably will happen again, and we would still not know why.

    Then again, with bugs, I would at least have another chance at investigating the issue. With opaque moderation choices, you still get no more chance to learn anything on the second, third or subsequent occurrences. The moderators will keep you in the dark every single time. Unless, maybe, enough people get impacted and quit in disgust.

  • Jun 15th, 2021 @ 10:16pm

    Re: Re: unNintendoed consequences

    And I always disagreed.

    My personal policy is: if someone doesn't want your money, just use someone else's products.

    If a game/movie/music studio doesn't let me "consume" their entertainment for some reason (geographic or service restrictions, basically), I will not go through hoops and loops to do so. I won't bother pirating, I'll just play/watch/listen to something else. There is a ton of entertainment out there, after all, so I don't need any one production in particular.

  • Jun 10th, 2021 @ 6:29pm

    Re: Assumptions

    Doesn't matter. Your phone, your messages, to yourself.
    Illegal seizure means they can't use it. Because it's all "you".

    (At least, it seems this concept still holds, despite the increasingly narrowing scope of "illegal seizure".)

    Now, change any of these to "someone else" and it seems they can use it. Against either yourself or the other person, depending on who owns the phone, I suppose.

    The problem here is not because "it's a message", it's because "it's someone else's message".

  • Jun 10th, 2021 @ 6:23pm

    (untitled comment)

    That's a follow up question mentioned by the article. Guess we'll have to see what happens next in this case.

    But this would be a terrible interpretation of the law. That would mean cops can break anyone's rights, for example by illegally seizing phones at random, collect information on people other than the owner, then do an "oopsie" and give the phones back to their owners, while keeping the collected data.

    That's not too far from they do in other cases (e.g. Stingray, collecting data from service providers), but a dangerous behavior to legitimize for sure.

  • Jun 10th, 2021 @ 6:10pm

    (untitled comment)

    Losing a hand in an unjustified arrest. That's pretty harsh, doesn't happen often and severely penalizes the victim... for not being immediately and completely subservient to a cop.

    If only there was a law against... I don't know... cruel and unusual punishments. We could even write that in the Constitution. As an amendment. Right between the 7th and the 9th.

  • Jun 10th, 2021 @ 5:53pm

    (untitled comment)

    Funny how she and us agree on two points.

    1. Our rights are being assaulted in relation to copyrights.
    2. The copyright system is badly in need of a reform.

    We just don't agree on the direction of the ongoing assault and needed reforms.

    Also, she seems to think that their little schemes to get money for life + 70 years are more important than the innumerable assaults on several of our rights using copyright as a foundation. (Free speech, right to repair our own property, right to actually own property... and many more.)

    The constitution defines copyright as a (optional) mean to incentivize the progress of science and culture. Giving money to someone (and his heirs) for longer than your own life is not an incentive. It's bad enough that it brings everything to money, even when an "infringement" isn't for commercial use. Worse yet when it can actually be used to prevent the spread of your work. Worst yet when it can be used to prevent the spread of completely unrelated work on the flimsy pretext of some vague "similarity", or misidentification by a bot.
    All this while keeping in mind that, in many cases, the author is not even the one benefiting from the system.

    So, she plays victim, like many republicans, bigots, racists, and other serial rights assaulters... or regular assaulters... in order to push politicians in the direction of more authoritarianism when she has no reasonable foundation for her demands. She has no fact to back her up, so she just whines publicly as loudly as she can. The bad news is... this shamelessness works often enough.

  • Jun 4th, 2021 @ 9:20am

    (untitled comment)

    A while ago, some right-wing show host got accused of defamation. He got away with it because his lawyers convinced the judge that nobody should take him seriously given that he generally doesn't state facts, just random unfounded opinions. (I barely exaggerate here.)

    It seems we're going to have to do the same with cops and prosecutors. They don't deal with actual laws, so nobody should take them seriously. There was even a case when a cop's lawyer was seriously arguing that they didn't even need to know the law and they could arrest someone based on what they think the law is. Can't quite remember if he got away with it though, but the attempt itself was outrageous.

    Next to this, "prosecutorial discretion" is just in the "awful but lawful" category. They can prosecute anyone they want and, more importantly, not prosecute anyone they don't want. The US legal system is basically a game where winning a case is more important than upholding the law. Actual facts and laws are less important than getting a win and avoiding a loss.

    (Also, people have been "educated" by years of TV shows where police and prosecutors are always the good guys, even when they use dirty tactics that should never hold in court. I get that it makes for good entertainment, but it also establishes a bad culture where "police is always right". Even a real judge actually cited the TV series "24" in court when talking about how to treat terrorist suspects. Facts and fiction are getting mixed up in the worst way possible.)

  • Jun 1st, 2021 @ 6:13pm

    (untitled comment)

    There is nothing special about fact checkers that protects them from regulations requiring them to be fair and honest in their dealings.

    Ah, this one takes the top.
    There is indeed nothing special about fact checkers. And that's good. They can be punished as any other entity if they go below the pretty low bar of protected free speech. Denouncing a lie simply does not. Heck, even lying about someone lying is not unprotected unless you cross into defamation territory. He should know, he and his caste do it all the time.

    Now, he is the one who wants them to get special treatment. Talk about hypocrisy.

  • Jun 1st, 2021 @ 6:06pm

    (untitled comment)

    I always find it funny how hypocritical people can get, political figures in particular.
    What he's basically saying is you are allowed to say anything, including the most blatant lies, and that's protected by the First Amendment.
    Denouncing said liars is not. That is a form of expression that should be fined because it hurts liars, professional liars like him in particular. And you can't do that. After all, what could he be paid for otherwise?

    Another point is that he complains that fact-checking basically amounts to non-government censorship (which is totally a thing, right?). However, most of the time, lies are still left on whatever platform they are found on. There is simply a layer of correction added around the misleading content. It's just "more speech", not censorship. But, in his mind, it amounts to the same thing, right?

    How the hell do people like Marcus not recognize that every claim they're making applies equally back on them.

    Actually I disagree with this statement. If anything, it applies more to him and his ilk. Liars should not be free to lie with impunity. And in some specific cases (defamation/libel/slander), they are indeed not free to do so.
    We still shouldn't have an official government fact-checking entity. We know what use "the ministry of truth" would have. But his lies are definitely more dangerous than others denouncing them for what they are.

  • May 20th, 2021 @ 12:59am

    (untitled comment)

    Wait and see. The "Free" model has worked pretty well for some games.
    I'll withhold my judgment based on two questions:

    1. How free is "free"? Multiple games recently have developed a concept of "microtransactions" where the price of each transaction is somewhere between $1 and $100... I'm not seeing the "micro" there. Also, how necessary will these transactions be in order to experience anything remotely like normal "pay once" games.
    2. "Free" might not mean "DRM-free". I dread the excuse that, since it's going to be free, we shouldn't complain about DRM... when it should be the exact opposite.
      Depending on their actions regarding these two points, I will either be enthusiastic for their approach or avoid them completely.

    There is also the quality of the games themselves to consider, but I'm willing to compromise on this point... to some extent.

  • Apr 17th, 2021 @ 1:35pm

    Re: It's amazing how many misread that commandment.

    It doesn't make much of a difference even if you are right. Those that "use" the name of the christian god for selfish purposes definitely don't "live up" to christians standards. Unless we're talking about "eye for an eye", slavery, death penalty... this kind of standards.

    Definitely not the sections about tolerance, humility, "casting the first stone" and "chasing the money changers out the temple".

    Their supposed "holy book" has tons of things, some good, some bad, some downright abhorrent (not even cleanly separated by old/new testament distinctions). And the most bigot and fanatic they are, the more they seem to follow the abhorrent parts and ignore the good ones. As they are now, I'm pretty sure that, should Jesus come back and preach the same as before, they would chase him out as a "commy", and possibly as a "witch" for good measure.

  • Apr 15th, 2021 @ 10:16pm

    Re: Joke-a-Thon

    To be honest, all of these claims are true.
    "This" (as in "this judgment) doesn't cause the cops to be shielded from legal actions.
    It just so happens that cops are (generally) not prosecuted anyway, regardless of their names being made public or not. And that state attorneys do tend to consider cops as "victims" of the corpses they created. (Dying is pretty disrespectful after all. You might even stain their uniforms with your blood.)

    Also, this has recently been changing. A little. When a case is too public. But that is still the exception rather than the norm.

  • Apr 8th, 2021 @ 9:40pm

    (untitled comment)

    From what I read here, he is.
    He is absolutely opposed to the First Amendment.

  • Apr 7th, 2021 @ 10:27am

    (untitled comment)

    "Since we judges never said this exact way of breaking the law was wrong, you had no way of seeing the errors of your ways. Besides training and common sense. Which don't count. You're free to go." - The Tenth Circuit, paraphrased.

  • Mar 17th, 2021 @ 10:47pm

    (untitled comment)

    Marx Howell probably hypnotized himself into thinking that hypnosis is a legitimate investigative technique.

    Either that or he's simply disappointed he won't be paid for making people sleep their way to jail anymore.

  • Mar 17th, 2021 @ 9:20pm

    (untitled comment)

    It's already known (or at least it should be) that cops are legally allowed to lie during interrogation. They can tell you they have evidence they actually don't have. They can tell you about witnesses that don't exist.
    I find that wrong, morally speaking, but it goes beyond just the morality of it. There have been numerous cases of innocent pushed to confessing crimes they didn't commit because those lies made them distrust their own memories. So it's wrong because it's a failing tool to find the culprit of a crime. Unless you see as a game where the goal is to convict someone. Anyone.

    Now, we have a worse case here. (And it's not unique.)
    This is falsified evidence brought to the trial itself.
    This definitely is illegal and the police - possibly along with the prosecutors, if they knew about it - should be sued back.
    There is some degree of immunity against lawyers, judges and prosecutors, but this should only stand when not committing perjury or evidence tampering. Also, I don't think that covers the cops brought as witnesses. And certainly not the paid and lying witnesses themselves.

    The third-party involvement here shouldn't even have been a problem because, except for that bribed witness, they didn't even have a case. Not that it excuses Hertz, but they are not the main ones to blame.

  • Mar 17th, 2021 @ 3:36pm

    (untitled comment)

    The main failure of this case is how it should have gone the other way.
    The cop as defender and the journalist as plaintiff.
    Too bad "wrongful arrest" only seems to exist in law books, never in actual cases, even the ones that have undisputable evidence.

    I'll agree with the prosecutor and That One Guy above. Sahouri's job should not even matter. This was a wrongful arrest, even had he not been a journalist.
    Justice is far from blind. She obviously knows several colors, blue is but one of them.

  • Feb 17th, 2021 @ 9:59am

    (untitled comment)

    When we stop having the cops harass ordinary citizens, which is a demonstrated behavior, we might not have to record every little interaction, just in case we need documented proof of police abuse.

    For years, police has abused people, and their word was law - quite literally - because of the lack of evidence to their lies in court and in the media. Nowadays, the balance is shifting - a little - in favor of the citizens thanks to cameras everywhere. The cops still have plenty of advantages, but their word is not quite as sacred anymore. It's a progress, but we can't stop recording them yet but because we know they still lie. A lot.

    You celebrating that they find "clever" workarounds to accountability is a cheap shot. The cops here are clearly abusing a law that is not intended for this purpose. They should be disciplined, if only because they stop working in the middle of an interaction to dumbly listen to music, and ideally for actively trying to prevent a citizen from lawfully recording his interactions with a police officer.

    Note that there will be abuse only the day cops are being recorded while off-duty. Otherwise, they are public agents in a public space, and there have been several court cases proving that they don't have a claim against this behavior from concerned citizens.

  • Feb 17th, 2021 @ 9:50am

    (untitled comment)

    What did the IP holders tell us again?
    Ah right, "Copyright is not a tool for censorship."
    Riiight.

More comments from Wyrm >>


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