Lostinlodos’s Techdirt Profile


About Lostinlodos

Lostinlodos’s Comments comment rss

  • Feb 17th, 2021 @ 10:09am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: this long to do it (things yo momma says)

    @ PaulT and others. I apologise.
    I was stabbed at another site shortly before this user was named here. And reacted inadequately to a reply (I acknowledged above I didn’t read and also tagged it as troll).
    The tag use in general has been used by the extremes of politics to define any alternative viewpoint.
    I should know better being a moderator and admin at multiple sites.
    I got caught up in the moment.

    Again my apologies for not properly vetting the situation before replying.

  • Feb 14th, 2021 @ 9:30am

    Re: Re: Stupid Opinion

    Sometimes an article pops up as a top search result, and gets new views.

    Sometimes we don’t read things right away if we have news feed, such as my case coming by a week or so later.

    I’m curious as to when having an opposing opinion became trolling!

    Besides, you have NEVER bookmarked a page and forgotten about it?
    This site has good reviews and occasionally good articles. Despite the political-one-sidedness some authors just /have/ to include.
    It’s in my news feed. I’ll skim through a weeks worth of articles one afternoon, read a few that are interesting, and occasionally comment.

  • Jan 13th, 2021 @ 2:08pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Ah, that helps a lot. Almost like a fancy BBs now. ;)

  • Jan 13th, 2021 @ 10:49am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    I assume you refer to me since I use international English. It’s just the way I learned it, and I’m pre-Twitter gen so longer posts are my preference. Any quick search for me will show I have used exactly the same writing style dating back decades. There’s nothing fake about it.

    I’m not trying to troll. In my first post under this article I responded to the headline. I covered it fairly quickly as well. The ban on Trump IS censorship. AND! There’s nothing inherently wrong with that.

    I make paragraphs because it’s easier to read. I hate the WoT; wall of text.

    I’m sorry if you think I targeted you somewhere along the way. I probably didn’t intend to. Most times I tend to be civil, if aggressive. I only come with claws when I’m attacked personally.

  • Jan 13th, 2021 @ 10:27am


    Well now... I see nothing wrong with arguing in the alternative. Lol.
    Sorry, couldn’t help it on this one.

  • Jan 13th, 2021 @ 10:20am



  • Jan 12th, 2021 @ 11:11pm

    Re: Re: Re: Twitter et al. wants it both ways

    I intended to type 28 and not 25. My error. And that reflects your data link.

    Second point. As of 12 Jan 2031 Twitter suspended 50k+ accounts and had 150K+ closures. Oh, and the headline? “U.S. adult Twitter users are younger and more likely to be Democrats than the general public”? Is that not what I said?

    Fox has said that there is a 3:1 likelihood that a conservative post will be censored vs liberal on both platforms. I can’t corroborate that with actual data, but since constant retraction WaPo and anti-trump NYT are quoted with disregard to facts I’ll take it as is.

    None of the Democrats wishing Trump dead when he had COVID that I know of; and none were sanctioned for supporting the burning of federal courthouses, police stations, or in the cases of Chicago and New York for telling looters where cops were responding.

    Final point. I’m not a deluded Republican. I have no beliefs in neutrality of ISPs. (I for information).
    But if you want protections for moderation of content it must be politically neutral.

  • Jan 12th, 2021 @ 9:14pm

    Re: Twitter et al. wants it both ways

    And in reply to the RE on protectionism that is exactly what s230 does.
    @Anonymous cowered .
    Do you (and Never Trumps in general) not read; or do you just attack anyone who stood up for the issue at hand?
    I already sided with Facebook and Twitter. It is well within their rights as a private business. I simply pointed out that by CENSORING they should loose 230 protections. An any and all civil immunity.

    My umbrage is with the author saying this wasn’t censorship when it hits all three legal clauses for being just that.
    I also think that a private bakery has the right to refuse gay wedding cakes and a coffee shop can kick out flyer peddlers... and a Gothic Punk fashion chain has the right to kick out Jesus Saves zombies.
    A theatre has the right to ban me for yelling fire.
    An arsonist can ban me for yelling theatre.

    As of the SECOND mass exodus that has happened both birds and fake book’s users are majority sub-25. Majority Democrats. And generally anti-Libertarian. Along with being anti trump.
    If their user base wishes to ban Trump, even as President, so be it.
    They are no longer neutral in doing so and should now be held legally responsible for any and every post made by a user.

    A private business can be neutral. Or selective. The later has zero claim to the benefits of the former.

  • Jan 12th, 2021 @ 2:28pm

    (untitled comment)

    Interesting op-Ed. And that’s what it is. Opinion.

    I have two issues here.
    Trump did not say storm the capital and break in.
    So insightment isn’t a realistic reason. Especially when Democrat have called for outright murder at times.

    More. I despise censorship. Period. Full stop.
    This is and was censorship.
    “ the suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, films, news, etc. that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security.”. Saying this is anything other than censorship is ignorance or a flat out bold faced lie.

    That covered:
    These are private companies. And they have the right to do as they wish. In this act of censorship they should loose all neutral platform protections. Then we can all move on.

    On censorship:
    I understand the mining theatre reasoning begin censorship of dangerous rhetoric. I simply disagree. The right to sell fire in a crowded theatre is just as important as the right to yell theatre in a crowded fire.

  • Jan 4th, 2021 @ 11:06am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    I follow. Actually that’s somewhat my point. The fact is that the laptop was his by both store policy and by Abandonment law.

    The minimal initial coverage tended to hide or ignore that. He didn’t hack H Biden’s laptop. H hacked a laptop former belonging to H Biden.

    I also agree it’s a money grab. He was denounced in most media as a Russian agent or a criminal; or both. He has plenty of places to pursue being wronged. He chose the one avenue that isn’t going to work.

  • Jan 3rd, 2021 @ 4:16pm

    Re: Re:

    Tony Bobulinski; Hunter’s former partner has confirmed the emails and messages are from/to Hunter Biden. He has also provided cell phones and tertiary emails that match some found on the laptop.

    Again very few on either side still claim any doubt on the laptop. The question is if Joe Biden was directly involved in what the emails reveal.

    Not that that is all that important to the matter at hand. Why he is going for defamation over hacker. When he may actually have a case over the claim he did something nefarious; he’s unlikely to get much sympathy over the term hacker. Most computer techs have no issue with the term. It’s one of the primary services offered by shops. Recovering lost or deleted files. By its very nature that’s hacking.
    It’s the custody/ownership at issue.

    But I just don’t see any judge wanting to take a case about news facts in the current climate. If there’s any cause to decline or dismiss a case they’ll take it and run.

  • Jan 3rd, 2021 @ 12:17pm

    (untitled comment)

    I don’t think think “Supposedly” is useful. There’s little doubt from all parties involved that the source laptop is genuine.

    The question is why he (or his lawyers) are focusing on the hacker aspect. He may have a leg to stand on with a focus on the false report aspect. The hacking someone else’s laptop aspect.
    Every major news source from WaPo on the far left to Breitbart on far right knowingly published disinformation during 2020. I don’t think any court wants to open up the fake news can of worms. He’s not going to get very fat with any judge right now.

  • Jun 30th, 2019 @ 1:17pm


    What does this have to do with tech?

  • Jun 26th, 2019 @ 1:33pm

    (untitled comment)

    “song by the band Taurus called "Spirit"”
    Nope it’s the song TAURUS by the band spirit.
    You get it correct further down the article

  • Jun 26th, 2019 @ 1:24pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    I find the political spin so very distracting! Calling infowars dishonest is the same as calling Clinton “honest”. There’s my political jab. Kind of distracting eh?
    Why the editors must resort to using politics to inflate articles is beyond me. Like them or not; infowars has a) proven to be right more often than wrong (though not by much even 50/50 is more accurate than Fox OR CNN) and b) has a following far beyond the so-called alt-right. Including to “original left” non-progressive Democrats and Libertarians.
    The article could have stood on its own without your spin on their spin.

  • Jun 1st, 2019 @ 7:48pm

    Real fake

    If Canada was going to be as correct and accurate as Trump has been, I’d be somewhat interested. But I have a feeling they want to shut down real news and remove anything they don’t like; leaving ONLY fake news. Much how the progressive movement in the US continues to push the beyond debunked story of collusion.

  • May 29th, 2019 @ 8:33pm


    I choke on laughing every time I read about sky-is-falling antitrust concerns.
    I’ve never had a major problem with Comcast/Xfinity.
    Microsoft tends to buy companies for products; then give the product away for free.
    T-mobile is looking to expand spectrum. This would give currently in-supportable cell phones yet another option.
    Antitrust is a misnomer.
    Bigger companies can maximise on volume and lower prices.
    Look what happened when Whole Foods became part of Amazon! Or, again, how Microsoft works.
    The biggest monopoly complainers are competition who’s product doesn’t complete; or more often is inferior. It’s never about protecting consumers. Not in reality!

  • Dec 23rd, 2018 @ 2:30pm

    Nothing new here

    I’m not seeing anything worth a story; beyond possible user stupidity.
    First this is a big fat nothing of a story. Years ago when I had AT$T I would get occasional notices of service changes that disconnected the internet until I agreed. Charter did the same to me even earlier. A mandatory click through for each TOS change. That goes back to old telephone DSL days.
    Second, the filter option was just that, an option.
    Third, the law requires that filters be made available and that the customer be made aware. A one button click through seems as good a route as any.
    Fourth: they pushed their own tool. So what. Anyone unskilled enough to set up their internet connection with an included software cd already knows that communications companies are going to push their software, be it by partnership or rebranded. The fear mongering in clicking to disable installing inferior software such as Symantec or Eset makes people install it anyway.
    So why not look at the far more underhanded tactics like those install discs?!? Not a click through notification.
    And really, are you so caught up in looking for something, anything, to prove the regulatory changes caused harm somewhere that you resort to this.
    This has nothing to do with net neutrality! No traffic was redirected. You weren’t charged to do something previously free. You weren’t blocked from using the services of your choosing! You were prompted with a notification from the provider. One that required a simple click through to access. A process I’m sure was easier than registering to post here. Where you get a page. Another page. Go to your email for code. Enter code. Finds article again. All you had to do was click through and acknowledge you were made aware that draconian filtering was available to you. Where’s the story?

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