That One Guy’s Techdirt Profile


About That One Guy Techdirt Insider

That One Guy’s Comments comment rss

  • Mar 25th, 2021 @ 3:55am

    'Also it'll give you hairy palms and you'll go blind!'

    Nothing like breathless fearmongering to get people to take your claims super seriously and definitely not just dismiss them, even any valid claims you might have had, when they find out that you were lying or grossly exaggerating.

    You can practically taste the desperation, the utter horror at the idea that people might learn something without paying extortionate rates for the privilege, though I suppose that's entirely within character for a group that's been the goons for hire of copyright maximalists from the get-go.

  • Mar 25th, 2021 @ 1:59am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Assuming I'm not getting my laws mixed up doesn't filing a counter-notice also require you to dox yourself by providing your contact information? If so that would be another reason that an automatic counter-notice system would be a bad idea, as I could see some really unpleasant characters abusing the hell out of that system to go fishing for personal information.

  • Mar 25th, 2021 @ 1:56am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Disappointing but not terribly surprising given copyright law is entirely stacked in favor of those making the accusations with little if any thought given to those on the receiving end.

  • Mar 24th, 2021 @ 9:31pm

    Re: Re:

    If that's how you want to define 'consequences for words and actions' then yes, I am absolutely applying 'forced speech' on you by flagging your comments, but by any sane and/or honest definition of the term then no, my flagging a known dishonest person has nothing to do with forced speech and your attempt to conflate the two isn't exactly doing your reputation any favors.

  • Mar 24th, 2021 @ 5:14pm

    Usually you have to pay good bribe money for that outcome

    Oh it would hurt them some but they've got the resources to deal with the resulting lawsuits and increased moderation costs whereas their competitors current and future would not and would therefore go under either immediately or in time as the bills add up, and a field where there not only aren't competitors but it's effectively not possible for any to spring up is something companies usually have to spend a good chunk of money bribing politicians to get rather than have handed to them by idiots.

  • Mar 24th, 2021 @ 4:41pm


    It's more than a little entertaining seeing someone who professes such hate for 'Big Tech' dancing to their tunes and playing right into their hands, and arguing in favor of actions that far from being problems for those companies would be the greatest gift possible to them by killing off any competition both now and in the future that might have otherwise forced them to change for the better.

  • Mar 24th, 2021 @ 3:26pm

    Like sticking your face in a blender

    BRINC says the 5-inch blade has tungsten teeth and can spin at up to 30,000 RPM. It’s enough to break tempered, automotive, and most residential glass. It’s an add-on feature to the drone, but it can be quickly attached with three thumb screws.

    Now imagine what something capable of doing that to glass will do to flesh, because I have no doubt that if police start using drones capable of breaking glass those blades can and will end up being used on people, both accidentally and 'accidentally'. Police already beat, mace and shoot people simply because they can and want to, if anyone thinks that they won't use what amounts to a flying blender against people then they are being extraordinarily naive.

  • Mar 24th, 2021 @ 2:55pm

    Re: Scunthorp problem?

    That would still be stupid but it would at least make more sense than claiming that he was harassing himself, which is what they accused him of.

  • Mar 24th, 2021 @ 2:52pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    They might not be able to charge for them but unless the law specifically lists that sites have to accept DMCA claims in a certain fashion it seems they could still punish those that file bogus claims, say by barring them from electronic submissions and requiring a physical DMCA claim to be sent via the mail.

  • Mar 24th, 2021 @ 2:13pm

    Re: Re: Have at it

    I don't know, pretty sure he/they would want access to the APIs of other platforms to automatically and forcibly rebroadcast their shit elsewhere.

    Oh I'm sure he and his cultists would like something like that, but even ignoring the constitutional issues of forced speech I don't see that happening as Facebook and Google would not be happy with something like that and would likely push back hard against any attempt.

  • Mar 24th, 2021 @ 1:55pm

    Have at it

    I actually really hope this one turns out to be more than just empty lies, because it would be great in multiple ways for a Trump-centric platform to be created. Not only would it attract lawsuits like mad that would require them to make use of 230 but drawing in all the Trump cultists away from civilized platforms, and providing a neat response to any claims that they've been 'silenced' by being booted off the platforms people want to use('Just use TrumpBook, they love people like you') would be of great help cleaning up those platforms.

    I'm not so enamoured by the idea that it will be used to con gullible suckers in one way or another, but if people are going to be conned then it would at least be fitting that it be those that worship at the feet of a narcissistic con-man.

  • Mar 24th, 2021 @ 1:47pm

    Re: Use the USMCA to stop changes in section 230

    Because the big companies that could fund a lawsuit like that stand to benefit greatly by 230 being gutted?

  • Mar 24th, 2021 @ 1:45pm

    Re: Disbarrment?

    Should it? Absolutely.

    Will it? Well, as past TD articles have noted covering various lawyers and their gross abuse of the legal system it takes a lot for a lawyer to be disbarred, such that if it occurs this time it'll almost certainly have little if anything to do with her actions and more be due to how public this is and the damage letting her stay licensed will do to the profession, and even then I wouldn't put good odds on it happening.

  • Mar 24th, 2021 @ 1:31pm

    'A very fine point about the negatives of doors Mr. Fox...'

    Congress: Facebook and Google have too much power and use their consititional rights in ways we don't like!

    Also Congress: Facebook and Google, what can be done to ensure that you not only keep your power but cement it such that there will never be a viable alternative to you?

    Having Facebook involved in not only trying to gut 230 but also provide guidence on how to do it is rather like having the fox leading the discussion on whether or not chicken coops need to exist, and if they do how they should be built. The 'conflict of interest' here should be glaringly obvious to anyone to see such that I can only assume that the grandstanding idiots in congress are either blinded by their hatred of tech or are working with them to kill off competition even as they pretend to rake them over the coals.

    Either way they're dancing to the tune of the very same companies they are supposedly trying to 'reign in', and it sure would be nice if more people called them out on that.

  • Mar 24th, 2021 @ 2:33am

    'Were you lying to that court, this court, or both?'

    We'll see where the court takes it from here, but it's hard to see a court responding favorably to a motion to dismiss that basically says no one should take Powell's allegations seriously… except for courts handling cases in which she's the one filing complaints.

    Funnily enough I can't help but suspect that most judges won't look too kindly on a defense that amounts to the defendant claiming that they were lying to the courts in other cases by claiming that mere opinion was in fact sworn statements of fact and deserving of being treated as such... but only within the confines of those particular cases.

    As for the 'no-one reasonable would have believed me' defense while it's true that no-one reasonable should the fact of the matter is that a much higher than zero number of people did(and still do), and given the context of the time with multiple sources claiming fraud including no less than the then president to argue that it's outlandish that such claims would be seen as believable is an incredibly weak claim at best, so as defenses go I'd think that one should be DOA though it is somewhat funny that she's found herself in the position of arguing, in court, that she absolutely should not be trusted or listened to and that all the claims of fraud were in fact nothing more than personal opinion not based upon any real evidence.

  • Mar 24th, 2021 @ 12:17am

    'Wait, not against us, not against us I said!'

    Petty, spiteful and grossly hypocritical? Not sure why they'd be cheering that on for a platform they don't run...

  • Mar 24th, 2021 @ 12:12am

    Re: Re: Hanlon revised

    And even if they did get elected despite being idiots thanks to idiots it's still entirely reasonable to hold them to a higher standard thanks to the power and authority they have been granted.

    Giving someone a pass for being stupid might be fine when the only person they're hurting is themselves, but when that same person is in a position to hurt a lot of people by their actions and/or words then expecting them to act intelligently and think before they speak/act should be seen as the bare minimum required of someone in their position.

  • Mar 23rd, 2021 @ 8:04pm

    All the wrong reasons

    I think it's fairly safe to say that anyone objecting to this will be doing so for only the wrong reasons, with the only question being what particular reason they're using.

    Will it be anger that they'll no longer be able to profit off of a quite literal captive customer-base?

    Being upset that kickbacks from the main company will no longer be flowing to them?

    Or perhaps they'll just be vexxed that prisoners are being shown the tiniest sliver of empathy and humanity by being allowed to talk to friends and family without having to pay an extortionists to do so?

    This is absolutely a good move and one I dearly hope passes and is taken up in as many other states as possible, but the fact that it even needed to be spelled out that yes, extortion is bad even if the victim is a prisoner is a pretty damning indictment on the legal system and the public's views towards convicts.

  • Mar 23rd, 2021 @ 6:46pm


    The large companies like Facebook and Google stand to benefit greatly by a gutted 230, and pointing out the stupidity of politicians sounds like a great way to get some revenge 'regulations' suggested for passage, so no, not likely.

  • Mar 23rd, 2021 @ 4:52pm

    (untitled comment)

    I seldom flag Koby since he say things that makes sense unless it's related to Section 230 where he have on several occasions indicated that it's okay to force speech on a third party.

    On non-social media topics he can leave good comments but on anything social media related 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(which ironically is an answer itself) to repeatedly making the same claims and arguments no matter how many times people have debunked them.

More comments from That One Guy >>


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