Koby’s Techdirt Profile


About Koby

Koby’s Comments comment rss

  • Mar 24th, 2021 @ 3:31pm


    he's long since entered auto-flag territory for me for constantly showing that he's not interested in an honest discussion via refusing to answer Stephen's simple question

    Hah! Talk about "forced speech"!

  • Mar 23rd, 2021 @ 10:31am


    So today I’d like to take a new approach: leveling with you.

    Don't tell it to the politicians. Tell it to THE USERS. Tell the users that you are editorializing. Tell the users that you are picking winners and losers. Be honest that you are actively hiding opinions with which you disagree. Inform everyone that your algorithm is biased, not to display relevant results, but to push an agenda. Just be straightforward and honest with your own customers, not with a bunch of useless politicians.

  • Mar 22nd, 2021 @ 10:16pm

    Shallow Excuse

    And to believe all of that, you again have to believe that the government's l337 h4x0rs didn't bother to cover their USPS tracks.

    I've never bought the "I'm too smart to have committed this crime" argument. Most people make an occasional mistake.

  • Mar 22nd, 2021 @ 1:17pm

    More Then Deference

    So, why do they lie?

    I say that for some of them, they develop a superiority complex. They may believe that they are judge, jury, and executioner. The subject in this case saw a police car following him, so he stopped his vehicle to see what was the matter. This action probably short-circuited whatever the cop was planning on doing, so it's onto Plan B: deliver some "punishment" anyhow.

    Except that the cop got caught on camera and lost his job. Good riddance.

  • Mar 19th, 2021 @ 10:39am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Also, he didn't do that. But, even if he did, are you saying games for children should result in fatal responses?

    I'm saying that the police response was very reasonable. No children that I know, or ever knew, were hanging out at a park and waiving a gun around, such that bystanders began placing 9-1-1 calls. It's not a game anymore when you bring a lookalike firearm to a public location, continuously pull it out and point it at people. Guys of any age who engage in this type of behavior would expect to be involved in a shootout some time soon.

    Btw, the police encountered a 5'7" 175 lb guy wearing a men's size XL jacket. They can't assume the person that they're dealing with is a child. I hope that none of this sounds like your idea of a children's game.

  • Mar 19th, 2021 @ 6:05am

    Re: Re: Re:

    If you think someone has a gun you know what you don't do(unless you want to gun someone down)? Park near them and open fire as soon as you open your door.

    I'm fine with the police driving wherever they want. Here's some much more important things that I think you probably shouldn't do:

    1.) Remove the orange tip off a replica weapon, and then get all self-righteous when others cannot determine that it wasn't a real weapon.

    2.) Don't practice mugging others at the local park. Don't approach passersby while brandishing a realistic weapon and issue threats. Don't expect that you can laugh it off and explain that it's not real to make things better. If you do, you should realize that a lot of panicked folks are going to call the police, and the police are going to roll up on you in red alert mode in a few minutes.

    3.) When the cops roll up on you, at any distance, don't reach into your waistband and begin producing a realistic looking weapon.

  • Mar 18th, 2021 @ 7:35pm


    Toy manufactures already account for that exact scenario. How? The bright usually orange piece attached to the end of the barrel. Those don't exactly come off easily. So if you're able to see the object in the kid's hand at all, You're gonna see that tip.

    The tip was removed prior to the incident, allegedly by Tamir's friend, to whom the replica gun belonged. That was the problem in this case, and why prosecutors have so far been unable to bring charges against the officers involved: when you approach the subject and he begins pulling something that looks identical to a real weapon out of his waistband, you have only moments to make a decision and respond.

  • Mar 17th, 2021 @ 9:32pm


    No, "big tech" is not monopolizing our public discourse, unless you consider some news media sites to be "big tech".

    The big tech social media companies that are affected by section 230 are platforms, not publishers.

  • Mar 17th, 2021 @ 8:10pm

    Re: Re: Re: One-Sided

    Big platforms are first and foremost focused on profits, if it was profitable to keep assholes around then you could be sure that they would be welcomed even if that made for a miserable experience for everyone else, that they instead keep getting the boot has nothing to do with morality but simply the fact that letting the assholes run wild stands to alienate and drive off the majority of users and advertisers, and since that's bad for profits out they go.

    Parler became the most popular app several times between November and January, prior to its deplatforming. It would have been very profitable if allowed to reach critical mass, and contrary to your assertion, the disagreement would have been largely isolated instead of creating some kind of miserable experience for others. So I can't agree with you. Instead, it was an excellent example of what happens when the big tech monopoly is threatened. Also, several incidents in non-tech industries have occurred in recent years, such as the Gillette debacle, superhero comics layoffs, politically correct movies, and print newspapers. They all eschewed the profits in favor of politics.

    There's even a saying: "Get woke, go broke".

  • Mar 17th, 2021 @ 3:12pm


    The bill still suffers from the same point that Goldman made originally. It throws a bunch of big (somewhat random) ideas into one bill, with no clear explanation of what problem it's actually trying to solve.

    The problem is that big tech has come to monopolize public discourse, and in the process become more powerful than government. It would be as if telephone companies decided to permanently disconnect customers who didn't agree with a certain morality code. And disconnection would be not just for using disagreeable language on the phone, but heard anywhere in public. The bill is attempting to fight back against the corporate morality police.

    Do we all need to write into our AUPs that such-and-such only applies if you don't encourage insurrection? As we've pointed out a million times, content policy involves constant changes to your policies as new edge cases arise.

    Correct. Attempting to create rules that only blocks the opposition without affecting those with whom you agree is the method by which the censorship occurs. If an edge case exists that's so complicated that a decision is extremely difficult, it probably means that you're attempting to justify the decision on personal grounds, and not principle.

  • Mar 10th, 2021 @ 11:47am

    Re: Re: Record High Revenue

    The government getting high revenue is not necessarily a good thing, why do you assume it is?

    I agree that it is not necessarily a good thing. Governments are addicted to spending, and higher tax intake will not ameliorate the situation. However, socialists typically frame a loss of tax revenue as a bad thing. Thus, a tax cut is considered to be detrimental. But what if companies could enjoy a lower tax rate, and it would also result in higher government revenue at the same time? This would be considered a win-win, regardless of where you stand on the spending issue.

    So with that said, I do assume that the author is demonizing tax cuts. If the author would like to clarify, and state "AT&T receiving a tax break is bad because a tax break will likely lead to higher government revenue, and I would prefer to see the government starved of revenue instead", a position that I don't personally take, then I would take back my assumption.

  • Mar 10th, 2021 @ 9:08am

    Record High Revenue

    the company got billions in tax breaks for doing effectively nothing.

    Those tax breaks resulted in the government collecting more money in taxes than ever before, thanks to the Laffer Curve effect. Putting the tax breaks into place was a very smart move. Socialists get so jealous when that happens.

  • Mar 8th, 2021 @ 12:18pm

    Re: Re: A Fair Question

    The police cannot distinguish a trap house from a safe house from the outside. Instead, they are getting warrants for a bunch of houses to which a dealer has been traced. It might be a home belonging to his brother, with a brick of cocaine and $20k cash in the basement. Or it might be an apartment where he was hanging out several nights a week, inviting friends over to watch sports together while he deals to anyone who visits. Or it might be the condo of a family friend who he visits regularly, and no drug dealing is involved. When the dealer is gone, the occupants are a married couple with two young kids.

    The police don't know until after they kick in the door, whether it's the stash house, or an acquaintance in posession of a small personal quantity.

  • Mar 8th, 2021 @ 10:42am

    A Fair Question

    Why Are We Raiding Houses For Drug Quantities That Could Be Easily Flushed Down A Toilet?

    Nowadays, dealers are using a combination of Trap Houses and Stash Houses. A location from where drugs are dealt is somewhat at risk for the dealer, in that often times the clientele aren't the most upstanding citizens. Consequently, the property is at risk for burglarization. So most of the drugs and money aren't stored there. Instead, they're kept at another location where substances are never sold, thus keeping most of the valuables safe.

    Also, if police raid one house, and a dealer splits his time amongst 3 trap houses and one stash house, and he moves around, he now only has a 25% chance of being taken down in the drug raid. Not to mention that he might not get caught directly possessing all of the drugs and cash all at the same place. There's a good chance that he might just take the money and run.

    To counter this strategy, the modern police tactic is to organize drug raids at multiple locations associated with a dealer, simultaneously. From the police standpoint, they don't know which one is the trap house, and which one is the stash house until after they complete the search.

  • Mar 5th, 2021 @ 1:07pm

    Re: Re: Remember, disagreement is not violence

    As I myself chronicled in the comments of that story, we can see the reason why those people got banned: impersonation. But perhaps it is worth a refresher here.

    The individuals that got banned realized that the names of many prominent political figures were not yet claimed, and so they began claiming and using them. One of the few rules established in the Community Guidelines agreement was that there be no impersonation accounts. The very first individual featured in the article, Thor Benson, admitted to attempting to register as the official account for The Federalist website, for which he got banned. Many other leftists who got banned were impersonating Trump.

    So whenever someone claims they got banned on Parler, ask what they posted, and under what account name they posted it. It probably makes perfect sense, and it wasn't for mere disagreement.

  • Mar 5th, 2021 @ 10:01am

    Remember, disagreement is not violence

    In fact, nearly all of Parler's brand was built on it's (misleading) claim to not do content moderation. So, how the hell could Amazon claiming that Parler wasn't doing content moderation be defamatory when that's the very reputation that Parler itself tried to highlight for itself?!?

    Parler was willing to engage in some censorship based on certain criteria, such as calling for violent acts to be committed. It wasn't willing to censor based on mere political disagreement. That part, no censorship for disagreement, is what it built its reputation upon. So the claim by AWS that Parler was not taking down the advocacy of violence seems defamatory, if that is in fact what Parler was doing.

  • Mar 4th, 2021 @ 3:32pm


    ...likely violates the Commerce Clause, which limits the states' ability to pass laws that regulate "interstate" commerce. It seems like if this kind of law is being written, it should be a federal law, rather than a state one.

    Currently, many states have regulations on the books in the area of finance which impact how entities from other states may engage in commerce within their state. Although it may be possible for a federal law to be crafted which could override a state law, the wording would need to be carefully crafted to actually prohibit greater protections enacted by individual states.

  • Feb 26th, 2021 @ 11:15am

    Too Much Credit

    A fact, actually, that Illinois lawmakers should damned well be aware of. So, this is either grandstanding to accomplish nothing, or it's an admission that Illinois has elected incompetent buffoons to its state government.... Neither conclusion is particularly encouraging.

    If it's any consolation, I'll reminded everyone of the congressman Hank Johnson / Guam capsizing incident. I'm just saying that it IS possible that an elected official could be so unaware. You are likely overestimating lawmakers.

  • Feb 26th, 2021 @ 10:30am

    Loosen Up A Little

    "it should come across as half-joking." And later in the same document: "The unindoctrinated should not be able to tell if we are joking or not."

    It's getting worse than the moderators not having enough time to review compared to the workload. Instead, the trolls are attempting to blur the line. With the big tech oligarchs wound up so tight, they're extra susceptible accidentally attempting to fact-check a piece of satire. And those sorts of events, when they succeed, typically earn the trolls even more attention.

    Unfortunately, they've found a weakness in the system that can't be solved easily by simply having more time to examine the subject matter.

  • Feb 24th, 2021 @ 9:51am

    Thanks for not being the Gestapo, I guess?

    The terms "misinformation and hate" simply means that you disagree. Allowing people to hold a different viewpoint is not bending over backwards to create a special rule.

More comments from Koby >>


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