Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt


from the words-exchanged dept

This week, both our winners on the insightful side are replies to a comment asserting that the internet has existed all this time without net neutrality. In first place, it’s BernardoVerda with an explanation of why that’s the wrong way to look at it:

Nah, the Internet was built on net neutrality; it was specified in the technical documents and RFC’s, it just wasn’t called by that name. (“Net Neutrality” was the legal/political label that got slapped on the issue, when certain vested interests (corporate and political) wanted it gone, and decided to make it a political thing.)

In second place, it’s Toom1275 with a somewhat more forceful response:

Anyone who isn’t a shit-for-brains sheep would know reality is the exact opposite of that dipshill narrative.

For editor’s choice on the insightful side, we start out with a comment from Thad in response to our guest post about the metaverse:

From VRML to Second Life, certain segments of the tech industry and press have vastly overestimated how much people want their online interactions to resemble walking around virtual environments.

25 years into the mainstreaming of the Internet, most people interact by…reading and typing text.

I can already drink a beer and talk to people on the Internet, Chris. You’re overcomplicating this.

Next, it’s Drew Wilson with some thoughts about Canada’s streaming regulation bill:

The Canadian government has been backed into a corner on this one. It still kills me that the NDP is even going along with it knowing their track record back in the 2000’s and 2010’s. I didn’t want to think the current leader can cause such a 180 on the parties stances like that, but here we are today.

As for the Liberals, they tried to rely on the text of the bill, but were immediately called out and proven wrong. They then tried to sell Canadian stories about how they “intend” on enforcing this, but was completely undermined by the CRTC Chair… three times. They then tried to play the “misinformation” card in response, but that didn’t work. After that, they straight up lied about what the bill actually does and tried to play the “misinformation” card again. That failed. Now, supporters of the legislation have resorted to the extreme of completely misrepresenting what Bill C-11 supporters have said.

It’s a lot of tactics to employ when the easy fix was to simply clarify that user generated content is out of the bill. In fact, an opportunity to do just that presented itself when an amendment was tabled to explicitly exclude user generated content courtesy of the Green party. That amendment was voted down, repeating the mistakes of Bill C-10 past and making it abundantly clear that the whole point of Bill C-11 is to regulate user generated content.

It is, indeed, possible, that the senate could block this bill. I’m not entirely sure that will happen. It’s also entirely possible that the senate could fix the legislation, though I’m not entirely sure that will happen. If it emerges from the Senate unchanged, all is not lost. This bill is also very prone to litigation (and it is unconstitutional IMO). Damage will be done, but I’m more confident that a lawsuit will strike this law down. I mean, it would be great if the Senate either blocked or fixed the bill, but I’m not entirely confident this will happen. Hopefully, I’m wrong on that.

The big broadcasters and big publishers support this legislation, but they are pretty much the only ones on that side (along with their respective unions). The only real reason why they support the legislation is because, for one, it would completely cripple their competition. For another, they have it in their heads that if they appear on the top of all the recommendations, then they get all the traffic. Forced promotion doesn’t necessarily work and can easily lead to getting voted down, like, a lot. That’s why buying ads doesn’t necessarily automatically mean success. They don’t really care. They only care about going back to the old days when they had a captive audience (i.e. TV and newspapers). We are WAAAAY too far down the Internet road to even think about putting the genie back in the bottle. That opportunity was long gone by the time BBS was a thing. They actually have to compete against online creators for the attention. They know their content is not worth watching by comparison. So, unsurprisingly, to them, it is unacceptable that they don’t have whole platforms tilted in their favour.

Over on the funny side, our first place winner is glenn with a comment about the very silly trademark lawsuit one bakery filed against another:

Good thing they don’t call themselves “THE Dirty Dough.”

In second place, it’s Pixelation with a comment about cops and their bizarre fearmongering about fentanyl exposure:

Officer snorts Fentanyl “Oh God, I’m overdosing. I, um, I touched Fentanyl, yeah, that’s it! Those fucking drug addicts I arrested had it and I snorted…I mean touched it and I’m overdosing!”

For editor’s choice on the funny side, we’ve got a pair of similar comments about Twitter’s round-one victory in its fight with Elon Musk. First, it’s That One Guy referencing a rather famous joke about a rather famous trial:

‘Look at the monkey!’

How unfortunate for Musk and his lawyers, it would seem they had the poor fortune of getting a judge that isn’t vulnerable to the Chewbacca Defense and since that’s all they had…

Next, it’s Pixelation again with an even more streamlined reference:

Musk’s best defense…

If the SPAM don’t fit, you must acquit!

That’s all for this week, folks!



Source link