Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt

Techdirt

from the fair-comment dept

This week, our first place winner on the insightful side is Thad with a thought about the YouTube ContentID fail that took down Beat Saber videos after the game was featured on Jimmy Fallon:

And, lest we forget, filters like these are now mandatory in the EU.

I say “like these” — actually, most companies don’t have Google’s resources. Filters are now mandatory in the EU — and most of them will be worse than ContentID.

In second place, we’ve got Cdaragorn responding piece-by-piece to a comment about Section 230 and free speech:

The US is out of step with the rest of the world

That doesn’t make us wrong or them right.

That’s called republication

No it isn’t. They didn’t republish it. They pointed to the spot someone else published it. If you can’t be honest with what’s actually happening nothing you have to say about it is worth listening to.

Not in cases of libel

Libel is not something contained anywhere in the Constitution. That document does in fact place the value of expression above any harm that might come from it. Libel is a stupid concept created by people who aren’t willing to deal with having their feelings hurt. It’s dumb and has no place in a civilized society or anywhere else quite frankly.

Section 230 only follows the rules set forth in our Constitution.

Actually it does not. It creates an exception to 170 years of libel law

Actually, it does. The libel laws you’re referencing are what violate the rules set out in the Constitution. The Constitution is very clear on the fact that the freedom to speak is VASTLY more important than any harm that might come from that speech.

This point isn’t even addressing the issue Section 230 addresses, though. Section 230 doesn’t say libel is ok. All it says is you have to punish the person who ACTUALLY SAID THE THINGS YOU DON’T LIKE. Anyone else pointing out what someone else said is never wrong and is not adding to the harm. It’s just part of the harm caused by the original hurtful statements. The only possible excuse for going after the platform is greed since they are far more likely to actually have money than the speaker is. That is not something that should ever be allowed in the law.

For editor’s choice on the insightful side, we start out with one more comment — anonymous this time — correcting misconceptions about Section 230:

A. Nobody is harmed by 230. They’re harmed by the content posted by an individual.

B. The harmful content is not the expression of the platform. It is the expression of the individual who posted it.

C. The Constitution places the value of expression above those it might harm. Section 230 only follows the rules set forth in our Constitution.

So what is it? You want the Constitution amended again to suit your feels?

Next, we’ve got a comment from That One Guy responding to someone who compared a ruling against flashing headlights to warn about speed traps to drug lookouts and pimps:

Telling people not to speed, versus lookouts for drug or sex trafficking… you know, there’s some sort of difference here but I just can’t put my finger on it, almost as though it’s a really bad comparison…

Over on the funny side, our first place winner is an anonymous take on the Beat Saber video situation:

Dirty pirates….

Obviously those @BeatSaber guys are just dirty pirates trying to steal Jimmy Fallon’s show from NBC.

I for one am glad they got the #BeatDown they deserved. This is what happens when you kids try to steal from those intertube things, now get off my cloud.

In second place, it’s an anonymous response to a line in a post noting that “ICE agents aren’t known for their warmth”:

Ice generally isn’t known for warmth.

For editor’s choice on the funny side, we return to our post about the flashing headlights ruling, where Gary noted an issue with the wording of the law:

347.07? Special restrictions on lamps and the use thereof.

(c) Any flashing light.

Congratulations Wisconsin! Your police have just argued the use of turn signals to be in violation of state law.

Finally, we’ve got Rico R. with a response to the Conan O’Brien joke lawsuit:

Serving copyright infringement lawsuits be like…

Knock knock.
Who’s there?
I copied.
I copied who?
You know who you copied… See you in court!

That’s all for this week, folks!