Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
from the it-was-something-you-said dept
This week, our first place winner on the insightful side is an anonymous comment about link taxes:
It seems to me that the best way to expose the link tax for what it is (a money grab), is to educate the legislators that a news site (in fact, any site) can use a robots.txt file to deny entry by any/some/all-but other sites on the entire web.
Then, when a news site is asked “Why don’t you use a robots.txt file to keep Google from linking to you?”, the answer will be telling. It’ll either be a) “We didn’t know about that (or some variation, such as it’s too hard, or it doesn’t work, etc.)”; or b) “But we want social media sites to link to us!”.
Given that second answer, it’s now apparent that someone did some excruciatingly bad parenting when raising their child during the phase where they should’ve been teaching said child that one must pay for the things that one wants. In no reality of which I’ve ever heard does one get to be paid for what one wants…. apparently except in Murdoch’s Bizzaro World.
Under normal economic theory, an exchange is defined as something of value goes from each party to the other party, not both things of value go to only one party. Never mind the business of fucking up of the internet, this is even worse than “New Math”. Given half a chance, this “New Economics” will tear down and/or reverse everything we’ve built as as civilization for the past several millennia.
Anybody who says otherwise is accepting bribes to legislate for link taxes, period.
In second place, it’s Samuel Abram with a take on the TikTok ban:
Another point of its lack of constitutionality
I would say the TikTok ban is not only unconstitutional on First
Amendment grounds, but that it’s also a Bill of Attainder: It punishes a
[corporate] person through congress without a trial.
For editor’s choice on the insightful side, we start out with MrWilson offering a not-unreasonably cynical take on the first place winning comment:
They’re not interested in learning more and many of them already know better. They want to be educated in how to win more elections and get more campaign donations. Elected officials who care to know what they’re legislating about would already have educated themselves or sought out expert advice.
Next, it’s TheDumberHalf with a comment about Mike’s review of Jonathan Haidts new book:
Every Day
My kid comes home from school talking about the world ending. Climate changes and war just support her depressive outlook. On top if all this, she knows that getting a well paying job will be difficult at best.
I’m not going to lie to her and tell her everything will be sunshine and rainbows. Her classmates are just as sobering.
We really screwed this up for our kids.
Over on the funny side, our first place winner is Toom1275 with a comment about Texas AG Ken Paxton:
- Demonstrates complete and utter incapacity for comprehending anything law-related
- Demonstrates complete and utter incapacity for comprehending anythung else, either. (AKA is a Republican)
- Delusionally declares losses as victories
- Irrationally simps for E.L.O.N.
Mr. Paxton, do you happen to hatepost as “Matthew” on Techdirt?
In second place, it’s MrWilson again, this time with a comment about Italy restricting “Milano” vehicle production to Italy:
You can call it a Milano if it’s made in Italy. If it’s made anywhere else, it’s just a Sparkling Automobile.
For editor’s choice on the funny side, we start out with an anonymous comment about the effort to extend copyright to codes that are incorporated into the law:
Oh©,© for© Dogs© sake©!© Just© copyright© everything© and© be© done© with© it©.©
Finally, it’s another anonymous commenter, with a cheat sheet for the review of Haidt’s book:
The TL;DR of the pared-down review, for those in a hurry?
“Oh jeez, this asshole? Again?!?”
That’s all for this week, folks!
Comments on “Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt”
Wow, I got #2 for insightful! Thanks, TechDirt community! Although I would say that T.L. corrected me and I admitted I could be wrong there. I mean, I’m no lawyer…
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
It’s almost like there might be something going on with link taxes besides just the link itself, eh?
Looking forward to this logic being applied to things like Net Neutrality.
Re:
Only what the news agencies themselves choose to display on the cards. It’s their decision to show more than the link, just as it’s their choice to allow the link.
As if Net Neutrality isn’t about ISPs being partially limited to being paid what they’re owed rather than what they want.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
In terms of what’s automatically generated, yes. But a poster can, e.g. post a summary of the article along with their post/tweet. And bills like Canada’s C-18 explicitly mention this. That’s why, for instance, C-18 can still apply even if there aren’t links. It’s also why companies like Meta are blocking more than just links alone.
It is on the ISP side. It’s not on the sites on the other side of that, that benefit from NN. Sites are getting something they want, without having to pay for it (equal access/speeds). And that’s a good thing, in that case.
The problem is that “one must pay for the things that one wants” isn’t universally true. There’s a lot of situations where someone wants something, where it’s not reasonable to make them pay for it. What that is really trying to get at is whether it’s reasonable for them to not pay for the thing they want. Sometimes it is, and sometimes it isn’t.
I get what it’s trying to say, and it’s true for this specific situation, but trying to portray it as a general thing is getting too cute. In trying to be pithy, it overgeneralizes. And you just don’t have to do that to make the point it’s trying to make.
Re: Re: Re:
The result of link taxes and other things demanded by news companies is that, yes, companies like Meta are blocking more than just links. Because as far as the media companies are concerned, the only thing that’s relevant is what they “contributed” and thus demand a tax for.
The media company has done nothing to contribute to the summary of the article in a link. The poster did. Why does the platform need to pay the media company because one of their users had something else to say on top of the link?
Is that your excuse for why you won’t pay your journalists more even when you’re screaming at us up and down that it’s our fault for not sponsoring them enough, forcing them to rely on link taxes?
Re: Re: Re:2
I don’t need an excuse, because I do pay journalists more, as I’ve consistently and repeatedly noted. I’ve also not said that they’re forced to rely on link taxes. Stop lying.
Re: Re: Re:3
Nah, you don’t.
You’ve been asked if you’ve been paying journalists more than asking price, as a follow-up on your belief that they’re not sufficiently compensated. You were asked if you would do so. Back then you said no.
You’ve just bitched and moaned about us fighting link taxes because horror of horrors, Meta said something we agree with. Endlessly. Repeatedly. Relentlessly.
Re:
Yeah, it the immense value that the link brings to the news site, yet then news site wants to be paid for getting the value. It’s absurd.
That’s Exactly what’s happening. Nobody want to pay extra for the access that’s already paid for.
Sweet Christ, why are you so obtuse?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
There’s other parts as well, though. It’s also the content that gets posted to the social media site, that isn’t directly tied to the link itself. It’s disingenuous to pretend it’s only about the link, or the traffic tied to the link itself. It’s not, and the bills/discussion around it explicitly say that.
That doesn’t mean link taxes are good, but narrowing it down to just the link is strawmanning. You can talk about why link taxes are bad without doing that, and it just makes the argument weaker to pretend it’s just about the link itself, when it’s not.
That’s what’s happening for ISPs. It’s not what’s happening for sites that are getting the protections of NN. According to the logic of that comment, a site like Netflix should have to “pay for something it wants” (equal speeds/access without getting unfairly hosed). Which is obviously bad/wrong, in that case.
I’m not being obtuse. I’m pointing out that statements like “one must pay for the things that one wants” is trying to be far too cute, and isn’t actually true, in general. It’s true in this specific situation. And it’s obvious that it’s not actually a general statement as it’s being framed as soon as you apply it to other situations.
You can dunk on link taxes without saying untrue stuff while trying to be pithy.
The problem is not that people don’t want to pay for something they want (there’s lots of examples of that, where it’s fine) it’s that the specific thing they want to be paid for is unreasonable. It’s really easy to make that distinction.
Re: Re: Re:
Quoting content is absolutely, unequivocally, fair use. What you’re advocating breaks EVERYTHING.
What? That’s a complete salad that makes no sense.
This. Right here. This sentence is absolutely what I’m taking about.
Re: Re: Re:2
If you see a comment where the poster comprehends what they’re reading and responds to it with rational facts, you’ll never see the name “Arianity” above it.
Re: Re: Re:
The largest part of the argument against link taxes is “taxing links will break the Internet”. That other issues—e.g., Fair Use protections—are part of the argument changes nothing about the factual nature of that first statement.
…fucking what
The whole point of Network Neutrality is this: Since Netflix already pays for the right to accept and send traffic on the Internet, paying extra for its traffic to recieve equal (or “preferential”) treatment from ISPs is patently bullshit. If an ISP wants to throttle Netflix traffic, said ISP might want to justify that move a little better than “we want more money from Netflix”.
Your posts do come off as a bit incomprehensible and antagonistic. They can feel like you’re trying to be a contrarian even when you’re generally in agreement with the article/other commenters. And I get that maybe you’re sincerely trying to help others improve their arguments—a noble goal, to be sure. That said: Needless antagonism will only ever hurt your progress towards that goal.
Re: Re: Re:
So, in addition tondefending link taxes and Bills of Attainder, you’re also defending the dismantling of Net Neutrality as well?
Be8ng contrarian has its limits, Murdoch simp.
Re:
Which is why they should be fought against. Or are we not allowed to because Facebook’s also fighting them?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
Sure. If you want to fight link taxes, you’re better able to do that by acknowledging that they affect more than just links. Acting like it’s just about links is just a weaker argument.
Whether Facebook is fighting it shouldn’t affect whether you’re also fighting it or not.
The only thing I’ve said you shouldn’t do with regards to Facebook, is pretend that it’s doing anything other than trying to maximize it’s own position. (doesn’t mean it’s not still useful, mind you)
Re: Re: Re:
No, but what it does is affect you, and you simply will not shut the fuck up when we’re trying to fight link taxes as a result.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2
That’s because you’re a fucking idiot, asshole.
Re: Re: Re:3
[Projects facts contrary to extensive evidence]
Re: Re: Re:3
Copyright law’s best and fucking brightest.
Re: Re: Re:3
No, you simply will not quit being a Murdoch simp, despite EVERY FUCKING THING being explained to you.
The only reason you even “agree” with any of our points is becayse you simply CANNOT counter the evidence presented to you by simply pretending it doesn’t exist.
You’re just like a CEO saying he’s sorry for us feeling angry, ie, YOU’RE NOT FUCKING SORRY AT ALL.
At no point during the link tax debate have you shown any sort of sincerity, instead choosing to waffle and snake around our arfuments, pretending like our concerns or desires did not exist, or, if it suited you, you got mad at us for not meeting you frankly non-existent standards.
I’d tell you to be a better person, but it’s apparent you don’t want to unless you take a long walk off a short pier.
Re: Re: Re:4
I love you too.
Meet you at Hong Lim Square, sweet cheeks.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Best CCTV security cameras
Welcome to Telecab – Your Trusted Destination for Top-Quality CCTV Security Cameras!
At Telecab, we bring you the best in CCTV security cameras, ensuring the safety of your home
and business. With 39 years of excellence in electronics and security solutions since 1985, we
take pride in delivering top-notch products that guarantee peace of mind.
Discover the Best CCTV Security Cameras:
When it comes to securing your space, Telecab offers the Best CCTV security cameras. Our
range includes top-of-the-line options, ensuring the safety and protection you deserve. Whether
you’re looking for the best CCTV camera for home or commercial security cameras, we have
you covered.
Key Features of Our Security Cameras:
Cutting-edge technology for optimal performance
User-friendly designs for easy installation
Enhanced reliability to meet your security needs
Wifi security cameras for seamless connectivity
Visit Our Shop:
Telecab Pvt Ltd
Shop No. 162, Old Lajpat Rai Market,
Delhi-110006
Hmmm. The AC forgot the ‘©’ for ‘©’, and for the sentence as a whole.