ladyattis’s Techdirt Profile


About ladyattis

ladyattis’s Comments comment rss

  • Dec 30th, 2020 @ 8:22am

    The turning of the Internet into Cable TV

    Seriously, these moves smack of turning the Internet more into Cable TV where only a few players can afford the process of even defending themselves from errant lawsuits. In this case, section 230 is great for small blogs or web forums where it's just someone's hobby interest to maintain. I can't imagine web forums and blogs with comment sections staying up long without some kind of shrink wrap legal agreement or even some kind of for-pay membership to decrease the chances of being sued or harassed.

    Poland's own government just came up with a doozy of law where somehow it's a-okay to sue anyone that basically bans or removes a third party's content FROM THEIR OWN WEBSITE. Seriously, this is getting out of hand. People keep insisting some random website whether it's a big one like Twitter or Facebook or your grandma's knitting Livejournal (insert boomer meme here) has to let any comer post anything even if it's pure spam or just vile crap. At this rate, I'll have to just turn off my rarely used blog just because these clowns in government keep insisting there's something wrong with people moderating content on their own property. This isn't like blackballing or any other kind of private censorship which society already has some legal recourse to tackle. And it certainly won't end anyone's life if they can't post their content on someone else's website. But they'll keep it up and I expect the Internet will become more passive/consumer driven as a result.

  • Sep 20th, 2019 @ 11:41am

    (untitled comment)

    I think the forgetting aspect is something private companies shouldn't be afraid to employ if it's dealing with victims of crimes, children, and the like who are most vulnerable to harassment and exploitation. I'm not a fan of the "right to be forgotten" laws since it's hard to discern what's a matter of public record and what's a matter that's not relevant to said record. For example, knowing the name of a victim of a crime isn't the same as knowing the demographics of the victim and the crime itself. The name isn't all that relevant but other facts might be. Aside from that, I think the idea of privacy is going to have to adjust here as long as demand an ever growing system of indexes that are suppose to be accurate for personal and commercial use.

  • Sep 18th, 2019 @ 8:20am

    Wow naysayers...

    Seriously, I'm no Elon stan here but the principle of the satellite network he's proposing isn't novel it's just hasn't been cheap enough until now. You have to remember many satellites were and are one of a kind construction. What's he's doing is taking the academic cubesat stuff and making it into commercial products to carry point-to-point communications which isn't hard at all. You can make a 'wifi gun' here on old Earth with some copper sheeting and steel rods for around twenty bucks give or take another forty for the tools (assuming you don't have them). It's the same idea, launch sats with directional antennas in LEO relatively evenly spaced so they can relay data between themselves and down to their uplink/downlink stations or just broadcast most generally (assuming their onboard routers are up to such an aggressive regimen).

    Seriously, there's lots of things to go after Elon Musk for (pedo guy defamation, overstating the reliability and safety of self-driving cars, being anti-union) but this one ain't it.

  • Sep 4th, 2019 @ 6:33am

    Re: MINE, MINE, MINE...

    It's capitalism in a nutshell at least historically. What's mine is not yours even if it's not really mine anymore. That book you bought? Mine. That burger you just ate even though you paid me handsomely for it? MINE!

  • Aug 28th, 2019 @ 2:43pm

    Re: Re:

    What's your take on I think it's got good bones but it needs more work (obviously, since it's still in development).

  • Aug 13th, 2019 @ 10:34am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: False Argument

    Like I'm willing to be lenient with evangelicals as not all of them are Family Research Council dirtbags, but anyone who's a race realist or bigot of another stripe I'm just not gonna invite them to the cookout, sorry. And note, that I don't talk party affiliation because it's not a straight line. There's plenty of center right Democrats as there are (even if some are afraid in this time of resurgent fascism) center right Republicans. It's just gonna take time until this all settles out and we'll see what happens from there. But I do feel for conservatives even though I'm a leftist. There's a similar problem on the left with the "red-brown alliance" of Nazbols (national bolsheviks), so this isn't just a right or left problem but a universal one.

  • Aug 13th, 2019 @ 8:31am

    Re: Re: False Argument

    Fascist says what?

  • Aug 13th, 2019 @ 8:00am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Socialist: believes in the need for a welfare state and government intervention in All The Things. Egalitarian and collectivist. Often atheist, but this philosophy does appeal to some religious groups. Racism tends to be protectionist.

    I'm going to take issue with your definition of socialist for a couple reasons. First, socialism doesn't necessarily entail a welfare state. In fact, welfare states were and are criticized by socialists as they're half-measures that are employed to prevent any attempt to socialize or otherwise convert capital to common ownership. Second, collectivism isn't also baked into socialism either. For anarcho-communism/collectivism sure. But more often it's an individualist ideology. And I speak as a syndicalist with mutualist leanings on this.

    But otherwise, I agree that racism isn't inherent to most strains of modern conservatism which is why I tend to argue that what is occurring is the resurgence of fascism in the manner that Umberto Eco would write about (Look up Ur-Fascism, it's pretty easy to get a summary of it online that gives you the telltale signs of fascism). So many of these folks that claim to be conservative only say so to get sympathy from conservatives as much as some will claim to be liberals as well for the same effect. But in the end they're fascists and reactionaries by definition.

  • Aug 9th, 2019 @ 8:31am

    Re: Re:

    At this point, the only bias is the money grubbing kind with all the automated banning that occurs as a result of how tech companies think (if it can be automated then it shall be automated). Which isn't good or bad, just lazy. Like how YouTube still leans on ContentID and other automated flagging systems despite their lackluster results. But it's nothing like what conservatives are claiming nor is it against the law as it is.

  • Aug 9th, 2019 @ 7:23am

    Re: So, you too want to reverse the "lunch counter principle":

    And to be done by corporations authorized by mere statute! Which is literally FASCISM.

    No, it's not the definition of fascism. You really need to read some Umberto Eco before coming out with this bs line again. Look up Ur-Fascism (sometimes titled Eternal Fascism) then get back to us.

  • Aug 9th, 2019 @ 7:22am


    None of this surprises me in the least. The conservative movement is out of gas and so they're trying to force whole generations of users to consume their content lest they be left in the trash bin of history. They continue to insist that if people are just exposed to their claptrap that magically everyone will be anti-abortion, anti-lgbt, and evangelical Christians.

  • Aug 2nd, 2019 @ 2:54pm

    It always comes down to control.

    As you said, conservatives are pulling a fast one. But what's more troubling is that I think many in the tech industry know it. What conservatives really hate is that much of SV isn't so much liberal but that it's libertarian. And libertarians generally don't want to be told what to do or be told who they can do what with whom if it's consensual/contracted. So to deal with such folks conservatives love to use threats of force such as what Hawley and Cruz are employing. Not only does it give them something to talk about for reelection, it gives them leverage over the tech industry. Even if they can't get their way entirely and have a captive audience on Twitter or YouTube, they sure can make it hard for those companies to shutdown actual fascists and reactionaries who are their ideological (and perhaps physical) foot soldiers.

    They know that the "alt-right" has been a shot in the arm to their ideology in terms of votes. If that segment of political discourse which often is explicitly violent or advocates for it in various forms (mass murder or genocide) was shutdown then modern conservatism would go with it. It's not to say that conservatism wouldn't evolve it just wouldn't be conservative by our current views (imagine a Republican who does support LGBT rights and low taxes and the like). But as long as the elites of the conservative movement rely on the Internet and it's most acrid movements then expect more of these interventionist attitude to percolate throughout the media as a whole.

  • Aug 2nd, 2019 @ 2:38pm

    Re: Re: It's Adorable

    It all comes down to the fact that conservatives want to tap into the alt-right and reactionary movements for their "young Republicans" of the future. If you ban those two groups which notoriously love to pile-on minorities (LGBT, PoC, etc) then they lose any chance to reach out to them. Folks like Ted Cruz are just too cowardly to admit as much. They know if everyone was told the truth that just about everyone would tell them to buy their own hosting and build their own site and work on SEO to get it on page 1 search results. Yet they keep playing the game because stating the obvious is evil some how.

  • Aug 2nd, 2019 @ 2:34pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Correction: flat-earthers.

  • Aug 2nd, 2019 @ 2:33pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    btr1701, YouTube mods have been demonetizing everyone for just about anything. It has little to do with any political slant. LGBT videos which have no explicit or sexual content have been demonetized, videos recapping comicbook storylines have been demonetized, and so forth. There's literally no pattern to the YouTube nonsense beyond YouTube not having sufficient number of actual moderators handling the process. Most of it is due to mass reporting by bots to tank a channel's revenue or get it shut down altogether. For example, CodysLab got hit with two strikes despite both videos not violating ToS and it was due to flateathers getting mad at him. So, where's the actual bias? I'm all ears.

  • Aug 1st, 2019 @ 9:27am


    I have to agree on the time shift thing. It's what irks me about CBS All Access and Star Trek Discovery. I don't understand why they won't release all at once and let users watch at their leisure? I don't want to wait until it's released on a specified time. It's not proper television in the older sense of air TV. So why make us wait?

  • Jul 31st, 2019 @ 7:04am

    Re: Re: Re: Oh, surprise. Leftist NYT sets up to censor conserva

    Oh I'm not doubting how hard it is to get on page 1 but my point still stands that access to an audience which is unwilling to listen isn't something the law can provide. Conservatives just haven't accepted that the younger generations (apparently, I'm part of that even though I just turned 39, lol) aren't buying what they're selling. They just seem to think if they can force eyeballs of a hostile audience to read their arguments they'll magically convert them over to their side. It's like the Clockwork Orange conversion scene but 100x worse imo.

  • Jul 30th, 2019 @ 6:41am

    Re: Re: What's the end game?

    But the Fairness Doctrine was applicable because the radio spectrum is finite so having TV and radio requirements to have 'balanced' views isn't exactly novel. By the way, the Fairness Doctrine never legally applied to print publishers as there's no finite quality to print as there is to radio as you always use a vanity printer and hire a distributor to handle the release of your wouldbe NYT killer. Just don't expect the results to be all that spectacular. At the end of the day, websites are more like newspapers than they are TV/radio stations as there's no current way to exhaust the number of them you can create (especially once IPv6 is finally adopted universally). No one is stopping you from self-hosting and self-publishing. So why are you demanding others to handle all of that for the price of free?

  • Jul 30th, 2019 @ 6:37am

    Re: Oh, surprise. Leftist NYT sets up to censor conservatives.

    Why are you insistent on having access to a random website's comment section? Like there's no one stopping you from rolling your own Wordpress blog and doing some SEO to get page 1 results on Google. Sure it's work, but it's infinitely easier than trying to change the laws to get free access and audience in another site's forum. Just roll your own blog and stop being a brat.

  • Jul 29th, 2019 @ 9:39am

    What's the end game?

    I'm still puzzled by these pushes to gut 230 or otherwise add further liability onto website owners. Is there someone angling to become a third party that "verifies" posts and other content? I'm just trying to see if this a money induced thing or something more fundamental such as just blanket ignorance as to how 230 works.

More comments from ladyattis >>


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