This Week In Techdirt History: August 6th – 12th
from the it-happened! dept
Five Years Ago
This week in 2012, we saw a couple interesting leaks. The fair use text from the TPP was made public, and we discovered (with little surprise) that the US proposals were about weakening fair use, not strengthening it. Meanwhile, a leak of MPAA documents revealed their plans to use sock puppets to smear Richard O’Dwyer, the TVShack operator that the agency was trying to extradite from the UK. And speaking of questionable extraditions, we wondered why New Zealand prosecutors were trying so hard to prevent the release of videos of the raid on Kim Dotcom’s home — but were again unsurprised when some portions were released and even NZ police admitted it was “over the top”.
Ten Years Ago
This week in 2007, school boards were finally slowly starting to get over their fear about kids and the internet, folks were pushing hard for a ban on all the “internet hunting” that wasn’t actually happening, and the New York Times was getting ready to pull the plug on its failed premium paywall experiment, TimesSelect. Meanwhile, in a display that is mostly just sad when you look back on it, Blockbuster bought Movielink from Hollywood for a pittance, hoping it could transform it into a real player in the digital media space.
Fifteen Years Ago
Blockbuster was at it this week in 2002 as well, finally eyeing competition from Netflix (still just a mailing subscription service at the time) and considering launching something similar, while the TV industry was fighting to try to make DVRs useless alongside the introduction of digital TV. We also enjoyed a three part series from Wired about the insane radio dominance of Clear Channel. And we took an interesting look at EULAs, which weren’t quite as bad then, as evidenced by the surprise and concern over a new Windows EULA that allows Microsoft to update your system when it chooses.
Comments on “This Week In Techdirt History: August 6th – 12th”
In the last week
Techdirt censored (hid) almost 100 comments in the last week. Why? Because the ideas on Techdirt are so weak and indefensible that no one could mount a coherent defense to the ideas presented by others. Weak ideas, weak articles, weak (and phony) posters (posing as Americans when they are in fact foreign agitators). A pathetic public display of fake news.
Here’s a challenge – present your ideas and allow others to present theirs, then defend your ideas. Can’t do it? No surprise. Techdirt is a bunch of weak losers, without the ability to defend their speech, only the ability to silence the speech of others.
Of course, when considered in a historical context, this is also true of the last month, year, decade, and pretty much forever. Only cowardly losers would suppress so much speech, and then justify it as “supporting journalism”. You guys are the laughing stock of the publishing industry.
Re: In the last week
You first.
Re: In the last week
That’s some IMAX-level projection from the AC who has yet to make a single truthful claim here.
Re: In the last week
Techdirt’s comment section is like Techdirt’s front lawn. Techdirt’s comment policy is an open invitation to come in and chat. You and your ilk, however, are the inconsiderate dog-walkers who come over and do nothing but leave steaming turd piles on the lawn. What you imagine to be "censorship" is in reality the more responsible guests dumping your shit into a secluded corner of the yard. Your comments are still here stinking up the place, they’re just more out-of-the way and less likely for the unwary to step in. If someone really wants to wade through it, it’s still available for them to do so, which would be impossible if Techdirt were actually censoring anything.
Re: Re: In the last week
You are just playing word games. Hiding a comment is censoring a comment. The only people who disagree with this are the ones doing the censoring. Not surprising, but a little pathetic.
Re: Re: Re: In the last week
If we use your definition of censorship – anything that in any way ever on any kind of private forum even slightly obscures any content whatsoever – then… well, fine. In that case, “censorship” is widespread, commonplace, impossible to function without, will never go away, and ultimately not a big deal at all.
So, now that we’ve made that word completely useless, what new term shall we coin for serious and dangerous infringements on people’s free speech?
Re: Re: Re:2 In the last week
What? I see you didn’t go to law school, that’s kind of a weak argument. You hide posts you don’t like. That’s censorship. I believe you do it personally, Leigh, care to deny that? Care to deny that Techdirt controls the hiding or resurrection of each and every post? I am sure this issue will become more public as time moves forward. (Very sure). When you hide a post, you can’t see it, search for it, have it indexed on Google, nothing. You (Techdirt) do it will the purpose to promote your Globalist anti-American agenda (you’re not even American, right?) and you lie about it. Lie after lie. Go ahead, lay it out for us right here in public, Leigh. Who controls what is hidden and what is not hidden. Make it a matter of public record. That’s a fair request in a free and open society, right? When exactly is a post hidden, and for what reason, and who controls it? (Keep in mind I have a record of each and every one, indexed and categorized)
Re: Re: Re:3 In the last week
By that logic, anyone who files a DMCA takedown on a Google result for illegally distributed content is guilty of censorship, too. When will you be calling for that kind of censorship to end?
Re: Re: Re:4 In the last week
No, Stephen, it’s just this particular kind of censorship that’s on my mind at the moment. And let me tell you why. If you look at Shiva’s complaint, you will see that he specifically calls out how well Google responds to searches by supplying a Techdirt reference. Shiva saw it as really terribly unfair and damaging, but actually couldn’t understand why it happens. Neither could we, at first. We now have a theory as to why it happens: That Techdirt is actually a publication arm of Google, to promote Google beliefs, philosophies and business objectives. That’s why it indexes so well with Google, it has nothing to do with technology and everything to do with hidden collusion. In that context, the editorial policies at Techdirt, including both the writing and the censorship of the posts, become relevant to establishing a pattern of collusion and deceit. This particular topic, of a previous employee of Google who now has a registered a public dispute makes it especially relevant. This site and this censorship and exactly what takes place between Techdirt and Google is what we are trying to understand.
Re: Re: Re:5 In the last week
Show your proof or shut the hell up, you vulgar troll.
Re: Re: Re:6 In the last week
The proof is in the making. Let’s see what Techdirt says about Google and James Damore. You’ve got to admit, the claim of an “ideological echo chamber” sounds a lot like Techdirt, right? That’s the real reason they hide posts. If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck…. It’s a Google/Techdirt duck, right?
Re: Re: Re:7 LOLwut
Last time I checked, Techdirt has not yet published an article about that ridicule-worthy manifesto. We cannot see what Techdirt said on the subject if they have not actually published any articles that cover it.
You once again try to deflect and distract from the subject at hand instead of presenting any factual evidence to back up a supposed factual claim. Either show proof that Techdirt is owned by Google—actual, factual, independently verifiable evidence which everyone here can view and judge the veracity of for themselves—or piss off, you vulgar troll.
Re: Re: Re:8 LOLwut
Prove it or shut up, right? Incontrovertible evidence or get out, right? I have a suggestion – why don’t you guys just require user names and passwords and keep this site private? That would make you happy, right, then you could listen to exactly what you wanted to hear, no problem. Why open it up? Why let people post, then hide it? Are you trying to appear tolerant and open when in fact you are intolerant, totalitarian and dictatorial?
Re: Re: Re:9 LOLwut
And to answer your question (sorry I should have put this in the last post), what about this: http://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/wendy-cockcroft-web-design-wendy-cockcroft-interservecom/internet/wendy-cockcroft-web-design-wendy-cockcroft-interservecom-wendy-cockcroft-manchester-u-1280160
“Ms Cockcroft suddenly became very angry and threatened to ruin my business before it started. She said that she was in with a very influential group of people on a technical blog who would write about me and many other people would comment. She said this would mean that my reputation would be ruined and it would remain at the tip of Google.”
“At the tip of Google”, did you get that? How exactly does one get published at the “tip of Google” (which Techdirt does) without colluding with Google? Why is Techdirt rated so high, it’s not the writing (every other word is sh*t), it’s not the fame and followers of the writer or the posters – they are all strictly Amateur Hour. How does one get to the “tip of Google” without Google?
Answer – Google <-> Techdirt
Re: Re: Re:9 LOLwut
Again, all you provide is deflection and distraction. You offered no tangible evidence to back up your claim; all you did was prattle on and say nothing of substance.
Your other reply also features no evidence of Google owning or operating Techdirt. It recycles the accusations levied at Wendy Cockcroft, who has nothing to do with this discussion, and asks what look like reasonable questions in an attempt to hide how you have not actually proven your claim.
Show me financial transactions that prove Google owns Techdirt. Show me access records and IP logs that prove someone at Google operates Techdirt. Show me any kind of actual evidence that verifies your claim—no deflection, no distraction, no obtuse questions and nonsensical attacks against other people—or piss off, you vulgar troll.
Re: Re: Re:10 LOLwut
Your writing is improving, really The last two times you asked me to “piss off you vulgar troll” I really considered it on the merits.
I like your ideas, too: access records and IP logs, those sound like good things to look for, mark that down, Charles.
About Wendy, I think it’s relevant, and you have not actually tried to answer my question (though I did like what you wrote other than that). Care to answer my question? How do you think Techdirt gets so high in the ranking of Google? What do you think accounts for it? Great insights, a large following, huge popularity, broad acceptance and interest, largest held opinion? Most Techdirt readers are in the US, most articles are about the US (in a negative way), but most posters and writers are not (and lie about it). What accounts for Techdirt’s popularity on Google? What’s your opinion? Blind luck?
Re: Re: Re:11 Nope.
You have offered no evidence that affirms your claims. Your questions are both irrelevant to that claim and a clear attempt to deflect from your lack of evidence.
Either prove Google owns/operates Techdirt or piss off, you vulgar troll.
Re: Re: Re:12 Nope.
Ok, three times the charm Stephen, I will piss off, since you asked so sincerely and repeatedly. Just one comment before I go, Stephen: You used to be more fun. I was absolutely sure that you would pick up on the “tip of Google” phrase used by Wendy Cockcroft (according to Mr. Diaz). It’s irresistible to use with a little mockery and sexual slant, right? “Techdirt: The Tip of Google, used to SCREW anyone who doesn’t fit into their agenda”. If you used it, of course, I figured you might add “in the ass”. Too good, right, you used to be a fellow that could laugh about that kind of thing. Now you’re so serious. Lighten up. See you later.
Re: Re: Re:12 Nope.
The proof is that if this was the case Shiva would be going after Google, and he’d have the support of the RIAA to do so.
But Techdirt isn’t an “arm of Google”, and if Shiva were to go up against Google on that flawed premise he’d have his ass wiped across the ground, with shards of broken glass strewn all over it (the ground, not his ass).
Re: Re: Re:4 In the last week
He’s wrong about that too. I just searched for exact words in the comment above and lo and behold it returns this article. There is no snippet showing, but Google most definitely indexes hidden Techdirt comments.
https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Atechdirt.com+%22When+you+hide+a+post%2C+you+can%27t+see+it%2C+search+for+it%2C+have+it+indexed+on+Google%2C+nothing.%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8
Re: In the last week
Here’s a challenge – present your ideas and allow others to present theirs, then defend your ideas.
Been doing that with tens of thousands of posts for 20 years.
So now here’s a challenge for you – come up with counterarguments that intelligent people consider worthy of engagement or response.
Re: Re: In the last week
Far too often here it appears that thoughtful and accurate counterarguments are deemed unworthy of engagement or respose by those you deem intelligent, with resort to mocking, expletives and insults being all too common rejoinders.
Re: Re: Re: In the last week
If the people making counterarguments were doing so in good faith—if they were not known trolls and provocateurs—we would give them a chance.
For example: I made some comments on that “protect free speech on campus” story earlier this week, and I did not once report anyone who merely disagreed with me. They made a genuine effort to have a discussion with me, and I made one back. They made an effort to show they did the work necessary to hold an opinion.
They are not entitled to an opinion. They are entitled only to what they can argue for. If they cannot or will not argue for their position in good faith, they will be mocked and ridiculed for it. Their posts may be reported as well.
If you want a discussion, put in the work to have one. If you want an argument, or if you want to troll people who are trying to have a reasoned and civil discussion…well, that is why 4chan exists.
Re: Re: Re:2 In the last week
Stephen, you are better than that. I have a read a lot of your arguments, and I believe you are actually sincere and appearing as yourself. And I have listened to a lot of your opinions and you have listed to a lot of mine. You have persuaded me of your sincere intentions, I don’t believe I have persuaded you of anything. But we have listened to each other, and that’s how it should be.
When I think of the words “totalitarian” and “dictatorial”, what I hear are regimes and people that do not listen. When you arbitrarily label someone as not worth listening to, you are behaving in a totalitarian and dictatorial way. This is America, and if it’s not America for you, it’s still a good idea to listen to ideas, and not be a totalitarian dictatorial jerk, which you are NOT. I kind of like you, actually, though we don’t agree much.
Re: Re: Re:3 In the last week
I have a read a lot of your arguments, and I believe you are actually sincere and appearing as yourself. … You have persuaded me of your sincere intentions
I suggest you get an early night and have a good long think about why it might be that absolutely nobody feels the same way about your arguments.
Re: Re: Re:4 In the last week
You are wrong – my wife reads these columns, and she agrees with me. Her cousin, too.
Re: Re: Re:5 In the last week
When did you stop beating your wife, sir?
Re: Re: Re:3 In the last week
I am not someone who files a lawsuit in an attempt to silence both the truthful reporting of facts and the expression of legally protected opinions. That is far more totalitarian and dictatorial than my calling someone a dumbass.
Re: Re: Re:4 In the last week
Actually not, Stephen, a lawsuit is just a lawsuit. It’s available to everyone who feels wrong. I am sure you would not advocate for it’s removal from our societal system, would you? And, I do support your right to call someone a dumbass. 🙂
Re: Re: Re: In the last week
Well, that’s all free speech.
Let’s see where the goalposts are now – ah. In the straw man end zone.
I have been reading here far, far longer than i have had an account, and i have seen people disagree all the time without any of that happening. There are, however, both transient and long-term trollish accounts who regularly post insulting items with nothing to back up the insults. So your tone policing is going to have to start with those people first. (Not that tone policing is useful, but apply it fairly if you must apply it at all.) People will respond with mockery and invective, certainly. But with most people i see in the comments, that mockery comes with an actual argument, or as a result of their disputant merely repeating assertions without ever providing any evidence for them.
I also get the impression that you imagine the regular, non-hater crowd here agree among themselves and with any opinion produced by “Mike”. This is not necessarily true at all.
Mike: Mike Masnick or anyone else who has ever written a post for techdirt. Also, roughly half the commentariat, depending on which conspiracy theorist it is to whom you subscribe. (Actually, all our personal names are Mike, only differing in our surnames. And we have consecutive social security numbers.)
Re: Re: Re:2 In the last week
You’re the same prick that posed as an American recently, when actually you’re a Brit, right? You insulted the magical leaves of the Berkshire Hills, or your literary demise. Tell the truth. You’re a poser, right, posing as someone you are not. Just like most other repeat posters, right?
Re: Re: In the last week
I see now. You have been “doing that” for 20 years. By “doing that” I assume you mean censoring comments of anyone who disagrees with you, because your arguments are so weak it’s your only choice. Who exactly considers which counterarguments are “worthy”? Really? “Worthy”? What a trivial and sad explanation for censorship. You simply don’t know how to defend your arguments, so you deem your opponents “unworthy”. You’re not American, right? Something else, right?
Re: Re: Re: In the last week
You have done nothing to show us why we should respect your comments or the supposed “arguments” within them. All you do is post this sort of obtuse garbage where you do not actually raise a point, yet act as if your non-existent point deserves an honest reply.
You accuse Leigh of “censoring” those with whom she disagrees for two decades, but nowhere after that accusation do you offer anything to prove it. You ask a bunch of questions that have no relation to your accusation. Nothing about that comment reads like an attempt at a civil and rational debate, if only because nothing in that comment is either civil or rational.
If you had an argument with actual merit behind it or an accusation with actual proof to back it up, you might get some respect. But all you do is dismiss and deflect and distract. You do not deserve respect—you deserve only the fate of having your comments hidden and having me call you what you are: a vulgar troll whose continued presence here is unwelcome and unnecessary.
(As for me? I have literally nothing better to do with my time.)
Is every citation you make circular?
You know it’s kinda funny that you’re ignoring the manifesto by the recently fired Google engineer.
Ignore it and it’ll go away?
I used to respect techdirt, but now they themselves have become dirt.
Re: Re:
I saw a very funny article about “Goolag”, very humorous, really. Thanks for pointing it out.
Re: Re:
This reminds me of a common point about tech patents that gets made here: If X isn’t patentable, then “X… With a computer!” should also not be patentable.
“Employee opposes diversity efforts at his company” isn’t a tech story. That it happened at a tech company doesn’t change that.
Re: Re: Re:
Really? Employee Opposes Diversity? Maybe I didn’t read the story correctly, but to me it sounded like “Employee points out the obvious, and gets fired for it, then ridiculed by the left, and generally made a hero to everyone else”.
This guy pointed out that women have not tended to excel in the field of engineering. Duh, Everybody knows that, just look at engineering teams or engineering colleges or engineering universities and ask anyone familiar with the subject. Me, for example. I taught at the University level as a young man, at the community college level when older, and supervised, hired and fired hundreds of engineers. Not so many women. Truth is, women usually don’t like Engineering much, it doesn’t make them happy to study it, so they tend to do something else. So what?
What Google is pointing out is the difference between diversity of sex, skin color, etc., and diversity of thought. This fellow had a thought, he had an opinion, and he expressed it. This is America, he should be able to do that without repercussions from his employer.
On the other hand, the fellow is clearly talented as a communicator, having upset so many people. He likely has a bright future, and can tell the Google jerks to go pound sand. That’s the beautiful thing about the US. Smart people have a lot of choices. And dictatorial companies that try to enforce “groupthink” (like Techdirt) never attract or retain the best. That’s been proven again and again. Google is on the decline. Not surprising, after all this time. Big companies suck, as a rule.
So, I think my title works better: “Employee points out the obvious, and gets fired for it, ridiculed by the left, and generally made a hero to everyone else”. Bright future for that fellow, I’ll bet.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Well, given the country is now run by someone who brags about grabbing women by the pussy, I have to admit that we can agree on that much. Jocks reinforce jocks.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Maybe that has to do with how women, from a young age all the way into adulthood, are pushed away from STEM fields by men who believe that said fields are “men’s work”.
Maybe they dislike it because men like you often tell them, at every chance you get, that they will not—or cannot—enjoy it.
Maybe he should have checked to see if Google is a government-owned corporation and not a private employer who can hire and fire people for any reason not covered under anti-discrimination laws.
Maybe he should have thought about whether his opinion would have cost him his job before he sent out a ten-page screed about how his female co-workers should basically quit their jobs.
Maybe he should have considered that “diversity of thought” runs both ways—that having nothing but the same perspective on the same issues is ultimately self-defeating, and cutting all women out of the discussion means losing their perspective.
Maybe this is because the Silicon Valley tech sector is awash in “brogrammers” like him, and his anti-female screed more than likely got him brownie points with such douchebags.
Maybe people who think of someone so openly and unapologetically sexist as him—someone who thinks women should get out of STEM fields and tech work because it is an inherently “gendered” activity—should not be considered a hero.
…wow, I used “maybe” a lot. Maybe you should consider knocking that word off all those paragraphs and reading them as unqualified statements so you can see just how bad your argument really sounds.
Re: Re: Re:2 women, from a young age all the way into adulthood, are pushed away from STEM fields by men who believe that said fields are “men’s work”.
Are women so easily persuaded?
Re: Re: Re:3 women, from a young age all the way into adulthood, are pushed away from STEM fields by men who believe that said fields are “men’s work”.
… seriously?
Re: Re: Re:4 women, from a young age all the way into adulthood, are pushed away from STEM fields by men who believe that said fields are “men’s work”.
It takes a lot more to persuade women they should avoid certain things, than it takes to persuade men that there is a problem. And look where we still are with the men. (Generically speaking, of course, since women have sexism as deeply ingrained as men, some men are aware of the problem and some women deny it, etc.)
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
I think people were too harsh on the guy. The way things happened is not how you make someone change his/her mind. I still believe a discussion recognizing that yes, biological aptitude exists but it’s very far from determinant and that it pales when compared to our patriarchal society that actively drives women to “girl stuff” as if there is such a thing as stuff that only women or men should do would have been more productive.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I tend to find stupid culturally-reinforced ideas like “women are inferior in x” to be the groupthink.
It’s almost as if if women tend to keep having a harder time in fields like engineering exactly because people like you are constantly making that assumption. From the way they are raiosed, to school, to work environments. Never mind the the ocean of other forms of sexism the swim through daily. It doesn’t need to be outright, active sexism, so the excuse “I don’t do that” is a non-starter. The deeply ingrained, unexamined cultural bullshit which people get all super defensive over when it is pointed out to them, that’s the problem.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Never mind the total fantasy your are having about something you obviously know nothing about. That’s the problem.
Re: Re:
The Google story is not that interesting. Some junior employee vents his sexist and racist feelings by trying to dress them up in transparent language, shares them with whole company, gets fired. Pretty straightforward. I dunno about you, but I’ve never had a job where I could have told all of my bosses and coworkers that I think women and racial minorities are biologically inferior without some pretty serious HR consequences.
Re: Re: Re:
Incredible. You (uniquely) know the truth about women in engineering, right? I’ve been an engineer in America for better than 40 years, who are you again? A three year student of journalism at Hummer College (is that a gay thing?) and editor in chief of Planet Oz magazine? You have an opinion about women in engineering? Backup up by what, your trivial education or writing about Oz? Come on, you phony jerk, you know nothing about engineering, right, and very little about women. I love women. I would have always hired women, I like their company. The problem is, by and large, women don’t like engineering. It doesn’t make them happy. I talked to a lot of them, over 40 years, and have a well qualified opinion. What’s your qualifications again? An partial education in Humming in the land of Oz? Regale us with your insights, Leigh Beadon, regale us about your experience with Women in Engineering.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
seems pretty likely that they just didn’t like you
Re: Re: Re: Re:
If you hire women for a job based on whether you get an erection when you look at them and you are not the owner of a strip club, a porn studio, or a Hooters franchise, you have serious issues.
Re: Re: Re:
Facts and scientific evidence that point out the phycological and physical difference between our sexes is now sexist and racist…
What’s next?
According to Darwin:
“Female mating preferences are widely recognized as being responsible for the rapid and divergent evolution of male secondary sexual traits…”
So basically women are mostly responsible for the evolution of men.
I suppose now Darwin is a sexist…
Re: Re: Re: Re:
It is if you believe the acknowledgement of those differences proves the superiority of one sex over the other.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Well, it does prove the superior of one sex over the other. Women are superior at intuiting solutions and appreciating the bigger picture. Men are superior at multi-step cold rational logic, but often lose sight of what they are doing or why they are doing it. Each is superior in their own way. Varies from individual to individual. We are all simultaneously superior and inferior to each other. Right? Or do you see some absolute scale by which you can judge everyone?
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
“It is if you believe the acknowledgement of those differences proves the superiority of one sex over the other.”
Care to quote which part of his manifesto implies that?
Diversity for the sake of diversity is just as toxic as sexism and racism since you’re deliberately not hiring those who are qualified for a position if their race and sex doesn’t fit.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Wow, you know what is so interesting to me? Imagine that this fellow was right about Google being dictatorial and stupid and not listening to him, even after they specifically solicited his opinion, and he wins that issue in court. And imagine Shiva wins in court and proves that Techdirt defamed him, and others. And imagine that in the course of those events, Google revealed that they actually slanted their search results to injure their opponents (like that young engineer) and promote what they know to be defamatory (like Techdirt). I mean, imagine if you could prove that Google was in the business of promoting defamatory materials in order to promote their political or economic agenda. Wow. That would be something, no? It would be like Shiva’s claim times a bazillion, I think everyone would try to get in. Interesting, no?
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
Two things:
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
“Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate”
“Frustra fit per plura quod potest fieri per pauciora”
“Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem”
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
Number 2 sounds like a challenge…skips off to 4chan.
Teeheehee!
Wow, we’re gonna need more volunteer pooper scoopers in this thread.
This week in Techdirt History
The Judge F Dennis Saylor, IV ruled.
Re: This week in Techdirt History
“Judges are not like pigs, hunting for truffles buried in briefs.” United States v. Dunkel, 927 F.2d 955, 956 (7th Cir.1991).