YOU have to make a positive case, not just repeat Techdirt’s lies.

That’s not how logic or arguments work. If the first person makes a positive claim, they have the burden of proof and, thus, have to make a positive case in order for their claim to be taken seriously. If the first person makes a negative claim, then the other side has the burden of proof by providing a counterexample or showing that the negative claim is inconsistent, and so they’d have to make a positive case that disproves the negative claim.

In this case, you made the following positive claims:

1. Facebook, Google, and Twitter “decided all by themselves to [become ‘active’ rather than ‘passive’ under Indian law by] using their own notions of ‘standards’.”
2. Techdirt is “leftist”.
3. Techdirt “label[s] pro-American[s] / populist[s] / Constitutionalist[s] as ‘dangerous’.” (And, by implication: those labeled by Techdirt as dangerous are pro-American, populist, and/or constitutionalist and are labeled as such because they are pro-American, populist, and/or constitutionalist and/or espousing ideas that are pro-American, populist, and/or constitutionalist.)
4. Leftists “label pro-American[s] / populist[s] / Constitutionalist[s] as ‘dangerous’.” (And, by implication: those labeled by leftists as dangerous are pro-American, populist, and/or constitutionalist and are labeled as such because they are pro-American, populist, and/or constitutionalist and/or espousing ideas that are pro-American, populist, and/or constitutionalist.)
5. Techdirt “actively support Facebook / Google / Twitter doing [#1] directed against half of the US population […]”.
6. Techdirt does #5 “simply because” of #3 and/or #4.
7. That the 2020 election was stolen.
8. That Biden is “a geezer clearly losing his mind.”
9. That there are “a bunch of kooks in the new Admin[istration].”
10. That one of those “kooks” is a “fat geezer pretending he’s a woman.”
11. That Techdirt writers consider themselves to be part of the Democratic Party. (Note that this is not the same thing as being leftist. Many leftists, even if only considering American citizens who live in America, are not Democrats, and not all Democrats are leftist.)
12. That the Democratic Party “will probably do away with Section 230.”

Some of these claims are more likely to be true than others, some are more relevant than others, but you have not given evidence or citations for any of them. For this reason, the comment you’re responding to asked for citations for one or more of those claims. They do not have to present a positive case in order to do so. You made the positive claim here, not them.

If you’re talking about the claim made in the article that “[t]he new law pretty much abolishes those [Safe Harbors] because complying with the law turns intermediaries from "passive" to "active," the commenter is not Techdirt and did not make that claim themselves, nor did they say they necessarily agree with that claim. Thus, they have not taken on the burden of proving that claim; only Techdirt does, and they have presented evidence and arguments supporting their claim in the article. The commenter, though, has no need to provide any evidence in order to ask for your evidence. (Also, contrary to your assertion, the commenter repeated nothing Techdirt said.)

Only one or maybe two of your claims even appear to address that claim, and even then, they do not contradict the claim itself, as both your claims and Techdirt’s claim can be true or both can be false. (Note that Techdirt’s claim doesn’t solely apply to Google, Facebook, and Twitter but to any intermediary like 4chan or 8kun, which have far less moderation than those companies.) But even if they were mutually exclusive, they are both positive claims, so even if Techdirt has to make a positive case for their claim (which they already did), so do you (which you have not). So, again, asking for you to present evidence supporting your claims does not require presenting a positive case for their claim.

And "YOU" are Timothy Geigner using your "AC Unknown" sock-puppet, which is also obvious. "You" didn’t comment a total of 58 months, yet NOW you’re hot on monitoring the site late on a Friday night? — That’s clear EVIDENCE that "you" are a sock puppet.

No, it is not. For one thing, AC Unknown has commented several times recently. I know because I distinctly remember you making these exact same accusations towards them before, minus the ones about monitoring the site late on a Friday night (which itself presumes that they are in the same time zone as you are).

More importantly, even assuming for the sake of argument that your allegations regarding their being inactive for 58 months prior to this one comment, it doesn’t prove anything other than the fact that they did not write comments for 58 months. It certainly does not prove your claim that they are a sock-puppet account for Tim Geigner. This has been pointed out to you numerous times, just about every time that you make this argument. There are plenty of alternative explanations, like being busy with other stuff or having nothing they want to say until now, and there is not a single known instance of an account being dormant for a long period of time suddenly being used as a sock-puppet account anywhere outside of your accusation against Techdirt and so-called “zombie accounts”. Sock-puppet accounts aren’t generally taken from an existing user but are created for the purpose of being used as a sock-puppet account, and they are not known for having long periods of inactivity. There is zero connection between your premise and your conclusion; if anything, your premise would be more likely to disprove your conclusion. There is nothing suspicious about a 58-month-long gap in commenting activity (but not necessarily viewing, flagging, first-or last-word-ing, or voting a comment insightful and/or funny) from an account used for the comment section of a news/opinion site.

There is also nothing suspicious about “monitoring [a] site late on a Friday night.” If anything, I’d expect more activity from an account late on a Friday night given that it’s the start of the weekend, a time schools and many jobs have off every week, and it’s the last day of each week that Techdirt posts new articles with news and/or opinions rather than contest results, a look into Techdirt history, or winners of the Funniest and/or Most Insightful Comments. And, as I mentioned earlier, for all that you know, it wasn’t necessarily late on a Friday night for AC Unknown when they made the post because you don’t know what time zone they live in and the times given for when the comment was posted are after being converted to your local time zone (or whatever time zone your device or browser is configured for). Just because the timestamp that you see says it was posted late on a Friday night doesn’t mean that that was the time for the commenter when they submitted it. But, again, that claim is completely pointless anyways as, even if it’s true, it doesn’t prove anything that you claim at all. There is zero connection between your premise and your conclusion once again. It is completely and utterly irrelevant.

And even if AC Unknown’s account is being used as a sock-puppet account (and, as mentioned, we have absolutely no reason to believe that it is, at least given only the content of the comment itself and what you’ve provided as supposed evidence), you’ve provided nothing to prove that it was Tim Geigner doing so or that Tim Geigner uses sock-puppet accounts at all. So, once again, you’re failing to provide proof of your claim. Now, unlike the other claims, there is some connection, in that AC Unknown’s account being used as a sock-puppet account is a necessary condition for it to be used as such by Tim Geigner, but it is not a sufficient condition, and the alleged gap in activity and the timing and content of the comment do nothing to add to that, so you haven’t really made an adequate case even if we throw you quite a few bones.

This is why no one takes you seriously. You make lots of positive claims, many of which are outrageous, generally without providing any evidence to support them; claim that anyone who asks you to provide evidence of those claims must provide a positive case/has the burden of proof and then fail to present the evidence you were asked for; and constantly repeat the same conspiracy theories that are based upon arguments that are clearly invalid and not at all convincing, simply asserting that the premises you give are “clear evidence” that your conclusions are not only true but “obvious” (sometimes even your premises fail to be supported, making whether the argument is invalid unnecessary to showing that it may not be sound).