That One Guy’s Techdirt Profile


About That One Guy Techdirt Insider

That One Guy’s Comments comment rss

  • Feb 10th, 2021 @ 2:00pm


    I might have more sympathy were the parasites trying to adapt and find new sources of revenue rather than trying to force Google to both provide them traffic and the benefits that brings and pay them for the 'privilege', demanding that if Google links to any newspaper on the planet they must link to australian ones and pay for doing so.

    At that point any sympathy I might have had for their financial woes goes right out the window to be driven over by an entire fleet of buses, and they will fully have earned the oncoming tanking of their traffic and relevance when Google drops the lot of them from it's platforms and services.

  • Feb 10th, 2021 @ 1:54pm


    Based upon the fourth point it sounds like they're trying to force Google into a pay/pay situation, where Google cannot simply just cut off the australian parasite and still link to intelligent(or at least more intelligent than their australian counterparts) newspapers from other countries, apparently having missed out that Google is completely willing to drop links/snippets entirely if pushed too far.

  • Feb 10th, 2021 @ 11:24am

    Ah legalized extortion...

    The Code prohibits the platforms from differentiating between an Australian news business and a foreign news business. This provision prevents platforms from exiting the market by taking care not to link to Australian news content. If the platform links to international news content, e.g., articles from the New York Times, it must also link to (and therefor pay for) Australian news content. DSM Article 15 does not contain a non-differentiation provision.

    And this is why it's so freakin' hard to do parody these days, how do you parody something like this?! 'If you do business in the country at all you are required use our product and you are required to pay us for it.'

    When spain pulled a similarly stupid stunt people were joking that in response to Google pulling service spanish politicians would pass a 'you are required to do business in our country' law and yet here we have autralian politicians proposing just that, because apparently refusing to support a given company is flat out illegal in australia.

    And yet gullible lawmakers still want to pass them, apparently to protect defenseless publishers like Rupert Murdoch against the evil lords of the mighty Information Superhighway.

    No. They absolutely do not deserve the benefit of the doubt here, were they as gullible and stupid as would be required to not see the problems with this they'd have trouble getting dressed, with something as complex as holding a job entirely beyond them, and since they can do both they clearly do not meet that requirement. They know full well what they're doing and deserve to be called out and condemned as the corrupt individuals that they are showing themselves to be.

  • Feb 10th, 2021 @ 9:44am

    Speaking of flags...

    Any goon with a badge who pulls a stunt like this is saying louder than words(or music cranked up to 11 as it were) that they are doing something that they don't want recorded, and if their employers, unions and the politicians that cover for them had any integrity or courage then that would be enough on it's own to justify them being fired on the spot.

    If a cop is trying to prevent the public from recording their words and actions that makes it crystal clear that even they know they're doing/saying something they shouldn't be, and given the power and authority they are granted as part of their job that is completely unacceptable and should be grounds for immediate termination.

  • Feb 10th, 2021 @ 1:12am

    The birds and the... broadswords?

    If you're SO BLESSED STUPID you put your GOSH DARN DIRK in a LOCK that some MORON ON THE INTERNET can HACK you're a BLESSED IDIOT who shouldn't have that dirk so you don't breed further.

    All I can say is that if reproduction involves daggers in your mind whoever taught sex-ed to you has some horrible misconceptions and really needs to seek further education on the matter.

  • Feb 9th, 2021 @ 10:41am


    Based upon comments I've seen from their unions and how they're treated in court more often than not the 'rule' seems to be that if a cop says it it's legal and if you object you can do so after complying by taking them to court. This effectively means there is no such thing as an unlawful order from a cop when it is given unless a cop goes so over the top that even the courts aren't willing to back them, and given what they are willing to condone I don't think I want to think of what that would take.

  • Feb 8th, 2021 @ 11:41pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    I look forward to him doing that, if only so we can get people like you to stop trying to get the government to seize the property of people who don't want him anywhere near them.

    Why would having a bunch of them gathering in their own cesspit stop them from demanding that the platforms people actually want to use stop showing them the door? It's not like they're going to stop thinking that they have a right to an audience on a platform of their choice just because they find another platform willing to put up with them.

  • Feb 8th, 2021 @ 8:10pm

    Shouldn't, no, reaonably can, absolutely

    A reasonable officer would have understood that deploying a tear-gas canister at law-abiding reporters is impermissible.

    As much as I'm loathe to agree with a corrupt cop I can see why a cop would think tear-gassing reporters would be seen as acceptable, and a majority of the reason for that is directly linked to the actions and more often inactions of courts.

    When a cop sees court after court, judge after judge giving other cops slaps on the wrists if not active support for what would be wildly illegal actions for anyone without a badge or a hefty bank account it's not too surprising that they'd see nothing wrong in doing a little of that themselves. If other cops can get away with bludgeoning if not murdering people on camera then what's a little tear-gas in comparison?

    Having said that while I can understand why a cop would think they could get away with such atrocious actions they absolutely should not, ever, and one can only hope that the lower court brings down the hammer appropriately in an attempt to fix that 'misconception' for this corrupt cop and others who might have similar thoughts.

  • Feb 8th, 2021 @ 5:12pm

    Turnabout is fair play

    Trump clearly gets more gratification knowing he's aggravating haters than he gets from appeasing those that might agree with him

    Oh he might enjoy trolling people by acting like an ass, but being laughed at and mocked? With his fragile ego that I don't imagine he's a big fan of and that's the entire point here, pointing and laughing at an attention junky starved of his accustomed fix and the laughably pathetic actions his addiction has resulted in.

  • Feb 8th, 2021 @ 3:19pm

    Can't do something again if you never did it to begin with

    So if he wants to serve his country again, he can serve a prison sentence.

    'Again' would require that he have served the country before, a more accurate phrasing would probably be 'for once in his life'.

  • Feb 8th, 2021 @ 1:38pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    And yet he hasn't done any of that, so either he knows something you don't about how it wouldn't work out like you seem to think it would or he really wants the audience on the platforms that civilized people use rather than the dregs on those other platforms.

    As for 'command a deal', you mean like the one that didn't work out with Parler when he was the gorram president?

  • Feb 8th, 2021 @ 1:30pm

    Re: Old Man Shouts at Clouds

    Lengthy prison sentence, tried and found guilty for insurrection and sedition and barred from ever serving or even running for public office again, stripping him of the 'retirement' funds that ex-presidents get...

    Plenty would be more fitting, but barring a republican party with the courage and integrity to bring the hammer down on Trump striping the narcissistic sociopath of an easy source of attention is at least a passable form of punishment.

  • Feb 8th, 2021 @ 12:54pm


    With people like that it's not enough for them to be able to speak, they believe that they are owed a large audience and if they can't have that then they act as though they've been silenced entirely rather than simply accepting a smaller audience on a platform that actually wants them around.

  • Feb 8th, 2021 @ 10:46am

    What a pleasant start to the week

    Normally hearing about an addict going through withdrawals is anything but funny but I gotta say, in this case it's downright hilarious.

    After being given the long overdue boot from two major platforms where he had millions listening to him he's reduced to scribbling on pieces of paper and hoping that someone around him will post his ramblings online(risking their accounts as well), and adding to the humor is that he could easily use some of the money he conned from his cultists to set up his own site to post on but he's so obsessed with the audience on the current social media platforms that he apparently refuses to do so(though I suppose it could also be that if he did easily set up such a site it would somewhat ding the 'tech is silencing me!' narrative).

  • Feb 7th, 2021 @ 10:45am

    Re: I'm seriously asking

    If they stop being like telephone service providers and start being more like newspapers, why aren't they being sued to hell and back for defamation?

    Newspapers choose what to include, if something makes it into the paper it's because someone there deliberately included it and as such it makes sense to hold them liable if they print something because they intentionally added it in. An open platform on the other hand is left to do after-the-fact moderation in most cases, allowing (almost) everything and only coming in to remove the problem content/users as they're made aware of them, so it's not so much that they are speaking so much as they are providing a platform for other to speak on.

    If they edit the content then why aren't they legally responsible for the content they allow to pass through their moderation filters?

    Because the alternative would be worse and in fact a case that ruled basically that is the entire reason 230 exists. If you make platforms liable for anything on their platforms as soon as they engage in moderation they have only a few choices at that point, none of them good for them or the public.

    1. Don't moderate at all. Comments about how certain races are inherently inferior, women are too flighty and shouldn't be allowed any sort of authority or power, that anyone not strictly heterosexual are abominations and deserve nothing less than death, photos of car crashes and rotting wounds, it all stays up, and good luck growing or keeping a community not comprised of the worst of the worst around if users have to deal with that on a regular basis.

    2. Screen everything, and remove content at the slightest provocation. Only the most tame content is allowed, and anything that even might be problematic will be pulled the second they become aware of it. As part of this the platform will by necessity be very small, since those running it will have to be able to vet everything and remove content at a moment's notice, leaving the majority of people out of luck.

    3. Don't allow user submitted content at all. If you can be held liable for what your users post then the easiest solution is not to allow them to post at all, and run an entirely closed site where the only people allowed to post are you or those that run the site with you. This essentially turns the internet into tv, where people can watch but they can't actually interact meaningfully with platforms, and also means that a lot of content that might have been created and shared is left to rot.
  • Feb 6th, 2021 @ 11:19pm



    I imagine it's a mix of 'journalists' who think the job is to simply report what someone said without any commentary and who've thus become little more than stenographers, those who don't dare call those they're reporting on liars for fear of losing any potential interviews/comments, and those that have a vested interest in seeing online platforms take a beating due to the competition they pose to more 'traditional' sources of news.

  • Feb 6th, 2021 @ 1:05pm

    'Cut the mic damnit, we are not getting sued over this!'

    I saw that clip and it was glorious. Judging by how they set him up('So tell us about Twitter giving you the boot...') I'm guessing they wanted to run with the 'tech is censoring conservatives' angle and instead he immediately went right off the deep end with the 'stolen election' crap, something they very clearly did not want to cover, whether because of the whole 'insurrection' thing nicely poisoning that particular well or the 'multiple people being sued and making clear that continuing with those lies can have consequences' part.

  • Feb 6th, 2021 @ 10:56am

    Re: What is a civil Rights Group?

    Yeah, knowing which groups those are would certainly be helpful for their donors to know who not to give money to, because if they looked over this and gave it the stamp of approval either they didn't get anyone knowledgeable in the field to check things over before approving it, or they also don't care about the huge damage it stands to cause. Either way, not a group people should be supporting, or at the very least a good one that screwed up in a major way and needs to be called on it.

  • Feb 5th, 2021 @ 8:31pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    Funny thing is that people have told/reminded them of that every time they've made their 'argument' and yet time and time again they repeat it unchanged, almost as though they're a grossly dishonest individual who has no interest in discussing the topic honestly.

  • Feb 5th, 2021 @ 8:27pm

    Re: Re: Re: First Amendment

    Happy to have been of help.

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