Mike Masnick 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (23348) comment rss

  • On the post: The Corrupt, Xenophobic Hysteria Behind The ‘TikTok Ban’ Will Soon Be Mirrored Across U.S. AI Policy

    Mike Masnick ( profile ), 22 Jul, 2026 @ 12:01pm

    OK, uh… I don’t see why this is a problem? It’s not like the ‘gives false answers’ machine is particularly useful.
    Just to be clear, anyone who thinks this is easily dismissed as an idiot. Have you actually used any of these models? Of course not. The fact you think that it only gives false answers shows you are ignorant. They can give false answers, just as humans can. But they can also be quite useful in all sorts of ways. I get that you decided 3 years ago that all AI models sucked and have not updated your confused understanding of them, but just be clear: saying what you said here makes you look ridiculously out of touch and ignorant.

  • On the post: Australia’s Next Target In The War On Kids Online: Your VPN

    Mike Masnick ( profile ), 21 Jul, 2026 @ 10:24pm

    Of course. This is why I spend so much time talking to regulators and politicians. I'm not sure why anyone would think me writing about it is mutually exclusive to me talking to regulators as well?

  • On the post: Australia’s Next Target In The War On Kids Online: Your VPN

    Mike Masnick ( profile ), 21 Jul, 2026 @ 02:39pm

    FWIW, in that podcast Cori painted a bizarro world, funhouse mirror of what she seems to think I believe in, setting up a weird strawman that was easy to knock over. Because sure, if my views were actually what she claimed, that would be bad. But my views are not that. But your complaint here is weird. I kinda think that the onus should be on the people demanding that we "do something" to give us their proposals, rather than demanding the people who say "those are bad proposals and make things worse" give people who want to do something proposals for what they should do. It's just a truly bizarre claim. Like how would that make sense in any other context?

  • On the post: JK Rowling Threatens To Sue Amnesty International Into Oblivion For Expressing An Opinion About A Charity She Funds

    Mike Masnick ( profile ), 20 Jul, 2026 @ 11:14pm

    Nice to see the blog that likes to portray itself as a lover of free speech then delete comments is doesn’t agree with . Ironic that eh …..
    The only irony is your misunderstanding of not just free speech, but also how comments work. We never deleted any of your comments. And even if we did it would not be an attack on free speech at all. It would be us exercising our own free speech rights to say "we do not wish to associate with this fucking idiot." But I don't mind you posting dumbshit on here and outing yourself as a very silly, very ignorant fool.
    By deleting the comment you proved my point that you lot know nothing of the law in the uk but still sit on the other side of the world and criticise it .
    Your comment was deleted, dipshit.
    Dear oh dear …. An American blog commenting on a UK story without having any understanding of uk law .
    Literally not one bit of this post had anything to do with UK law. Hiding behind the fact that UK law is really shitty on free speech is not exactly the flex you think it is. But my point was not about what was legal. It was about an attack on free speech. That UK law enables that kind of attack on free speech is, perhaps, something you should be concerned about rather than cheering it on.
    And i’ll be forwarding this blog to jk as im sure she’ll be delighted to see you labelling her as a transphobe for expressing her legally protected beliefs .
    Bring it the fuck on. If JK Rowling is upset that I expressed my opinion, then you have just further proven my point that JK Rowling is no supporter of free speech or open debate, but is a censorial, hateful person. Criticizing someone for trying to destroy a wonderful and important charity because you don't like their opinion is ALSO free speech. And if JK Rowling chooses to use UK's pro-censorship laws over that, it will only serve to demonstrate the problems of UK law. It means nothing to me in the US, protected by the SPEECH Act and the First Amendment.

  • On the post: Australia’s Next Target In The War On Kids Online: Your VPN

    Mike Masnick ( profile ), 20 Jul, 2026 @ 11:05pm

    I think Arianity’s point is that taking the same approach and talking points year after year, and article after article, has not helped, but has instead hurt.
    Being correct hasn't helped and has hurt? Fuck that. That is wrong and stupid. These efforts have been a disaster, just as we predicted.

  • On the post: Australia’s Next Target In The War On Kids Online: Your VPN

    Mike Masnick ( profile ), 20 Jul, 2026 @ 11:04pm

    You would prefer that I lie to make some politicians feel better? Because I won't do that.

  • On the post: Everything Is For Sale In The Trump White House, Even His Truth Social Posts

    Mike Masnick ( profile ), 20 Jul, 2026 @ 03:42pm

    How’s that any different from advertising and paywalls in general? Companies pay for advertising precisely to “move markets” (that is, shift revenue toward themselves), and subscribe to news services to get early access to data that will help them in their market manipulation (which is probably not “market manipulation” as defined in securities law).
    Can you point me to a former US President that has owned a media property selling early access to his own pronouncements? Because, you know, THAT is what is different here. Which I thought was obvious.

  • On the post: Paramount Falsely Threatens To Leave California After State Challenges Merger

    Mike Masnick ( profile ), 14 Jul, 2026 @ 10:23pm

    Yeah, that must be why it's the second most popular state for people to move to... https://www.newsweek.com/california-sees-surge-people-moving-state-1986685 Oh wait...

  • On the post: Federal Judge Nukes Trump’s Self-Dealt IRS ‘Settlement,’ Sends Lawyers To The Bar

    Mike Masnick ( profile ), 14 Jul, 2026 @ 03:49pm

    I mean, look, I know you didn't actually read the details and got your talking point from some moog on NRO or whatever, but no, as the opinion goes to great length to explain over the course of multiple pages, this is nothing like what the Obama administration did (it also includes a footnote showing the Trump admin claiming that Obama shouldn't have been allowed to do the much different thing he did, so even if Trump and fools like you want to claim its the same thing, the Trump admin has publicly stated that Obama's Keepseagle agreement was unconstitutional and shouldn't be allowed.). So, even if Obama did what Trump did (which he didn't) then you still look like a fucking rube, because Trump has said the settlements of the nature Obama did do shouldn't be allowed. So either way you continue to look exactly as you are: a Trump ass kissing toady with no principles and no beliefs other than a willingness to lie in favor of your god king. Pathetic.

  • On the post: And Now Basically Everyone In This LEGO Dispute Looks Sketchy

    Mike Masnick ( profile ), 13 Jul, 2026 @ 09:34pm

    "Minor writing critique." He called my accurate reporting "a crime." Nothing I said was said in anger. I take it you're new around here? As for the rest of your post... you basically are agreeing with what I've already said. Super helpful.

  • On the post: “Reckless” Ben’s Videos Keep Getting More Damning. His Pro Se Lawyering Keeps Getting Worse.

    Mike Masnick ( profile ), 13 Jul, 2026 @ 01:04pm

    In a criminal case you can always ask for a public defender.

  • On the post: “Reckless” Ben’s Videos Keep Getting More Damning. His Pro Se Lawyering Keeps Getting Worse.

    Mike Masnick ( profile ), 13 Jul, 2026 @ 11:36am

    Heh. Okay. Ignore this comment. The video wasn't down. There was a weird issue with a backslash somehow getting into the URL and breaking the original embed.... It's all fixed now.

  • On the post: Trump Admin Supoenas NYT Reporters Because They Dared To Criticize His Qatari Graft Plane

    Mike Masnick ( profile ), 13 Jul, 2026 @ 11:34am

    It’s actually because someone leaked classified info to the NYT, which is a crime, but do go on.
    This is such a weird comment, because it comes from someone who wants to sound savvy, but is simply ignorant. Yes, leaking classified info is a crime. For the person who leaked it. But we also have First Amendment protections for journalists who report on leaked classified documents — which is very much NOT a crime. There are also clear rules for when the DOJ is supposed to and not supposed to send subpoenas to journalists, and this CLEARLY violates those rules. So, no, your simple summary is simply ignorant.

  • On the post: “Reckless” Ben’s Videos Keep Getting More Damning. His Pro Se Lawyering Keeps Getting Worse.

    Mike Masnick ( profile ), 13 Jul, 2026 @ 11:30am

    Video down

    Hey folks... not sure what's going on, but at some point, it appears Ben's video was removed? I noticed it today when I opened this post and rather there being the embed, there was just a bare URL. I thought embedding was broken, but it's that the video has been removed. I've added an update to the story, but I have no idea why it was removed or by whom... Will update when I can.

  • On the post: Trump’s Reflecting Pool Failures To Be Taken Out On US Olympic Canoeist David Hearn

    Mike Masnick ( profile ), 08 Jul, 2026 @ 01:06am

    Note for anyone visiting the site: this troll keeps posting that they have "numerous videos" of people vandalizing the pool. Multiple other commenters have asked for links to said videos. This troll commenter never replies. That's because they're not serious. They're just trolling.

  • On the post: Censorship Lawsuit Against Disinformation Researchers Dismissed — After Succeeding At Actual Censorship

    Mike Masnick ( profile ), 06 Jul, 2026 @ 09:37pm

    Kinda weird that they had all this supposed evidence and completely failed to convince the courts that it happened. Your own Amy Coney Barrett explained this in great detail in a SCOTUS ruling you refuse to read, but five separate times she highlighted that there was "no evidence" to support such a claim, and later dinged the lower court for pointing to "clearly erroneous" claims about such censorship. If it was so obvious, you'd think they'd maybe have presented the evidence in court? Weird that they didn't. Or, Occam's razor says you're full of shit.

  • On the post: The Supreme Court Upholds The Constitution. Barely.

    Mike Masnick ( profile ), 01 Jul, 2026 @ 09:46pm

    This is why my plan includes a more radical rethinking, not just "stacking the court" but changing the nature of the court: https://www.techdirt.com/2026/01/16/the-case-for-a-100-justice-supreme-court/ Expand it to 100 Justices so that no single justice can matter that much. Along with that, I'd change rules on jurisdiction shopping, increase the number of circuits, and make a bunch of other procedural changes as well. It's not "stacking" the court, which leads to escalation. It's revamping how the courts work.

  • On the post: The Free And Open Web Is Under Attack At The IETF

    Mike Masnick ( profile ), 26 Jun, 2026 @ 10:57pm

    This is not even remotely equivalent. I asked a legitimate question: I run a small site. We have done nothing to prevent AI scraping. If it's true that AI scraping is overwhelming small sites, I expect we would have seen it. We have not. So I'm legitimately confused as to why. I said (directly, which you ignore — why?) that it's entirely possible other sites are experiencing it. I'm just legitimately confused why we haven't. It honestly makes no sense to me. We should see this influx of bot traffic. And we haven't. So I was hoping someone could explain why. The only thing someone said is that we've been "exempted" but that doesn't make sense to me. Who would exempt us? And why?

  • On the post: The Free And Open Web Is Under Attack At The IETF

    Mike Masnick ( profile ), 26 Jun, 2026 @ 10:55pm

    You’re not seeing it here for the same reason that certain other sites aren’t seeing it: this site’s on an exemption list.
    Why would we be on an exemption list? We've made it clear we're fine with AI scraping and are well represented in most AI tools I know of. So I don't understand this claim that they would exempt us. Why?

  • On the post: The Free And Open Web Is Under Attack At The IETF

    Mike Masnick ( profile ), 26 Jun, 2026 @ 01:28am

    Small websites are getting absolutely crushed by automated tools–most of which are AI bots–and I don’t see you providing a real solution to that.
    I keep hearing this... and yet, we haven't seen that here. And we don't really take any steps to block AI scrapers (even though we could). Every so often we get a bot that goes haywire, but it's always been relatively easy to deal with. I'm sure that some sites are overwhelmed with AI scraping traffic, but I find it odd that so many people insist it's killing smaller sites... and we just haven't seen it at all. So... can someone explain why there's a supposed flood of bot traffic overwhelming sites, but doesn't seem to be hitting us? I'm not saying that it's not happening. I just don't understand why we don't see it here.

Next >>