Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At BestNetTech

Techdirt

from the chit-chat dept

This week, our first place winner on the insightful side is an anonymous comment about Jim Jordan demanding major ad companies explain why they won’t advertise on Truth Social:

Far right: we support free speech and free markets!
Businesses: We’ve decided it’s not in our best interest to advertise on this far-right website.
Far right: Advertise there or else!

In second place, it’s That One Guy with an objection to something in our post about Hillary Clinton joining the anti-Section 230 brigade — specifically, our reference to “politicians who don’t understand” the law:

It’s not ‘confusion’ when you’re lying

Once more with emphasis I guess…

Stop. Giving. Politicians. The. Benefit. Of. The. Doubt.

These are people who are either in office or running for it, stop assuming that the reason they keep getting 230 wrong is because they ‘don’t understand’ what might be the simplest law on the books based upon the most basic concept of ‘if you didn’t say if you’re not liable for it’.

There is no chance that they haven’t been corrected repeatedly by actual experts about what the law actually says when they get it wrong and even less chance that they don’t have the ability to get experts on the line within the day if they so desired so if they get something wrong? Make an ‘oopsie’ about what the law says? A tiny little mistake about how the law works?

That’s intentional

For editor’s choice on the insightful side, we start out with a comment from Mamba about the notion that every argument should be debated rather than dismissed or suppressed. It’s a great comment despite a lot of typos:

That is so much bullshit.

Brandolini’s law dictates that you’d have to find a substantially larger number of people to ‘debate’ antivaxers, because one side isn’t ‘arguing’ in good faith. They are willing to outright lie, and when that’s the. And there’s absolutely no reason to engage with them. One doesn’t argue with a fraudster calling on the phone about a Nigerian prince that needs your help. You hang up on them.

Firing others to debate you isn’t a right, but free association is.

Next, it’s an anonymous comment responding to the argument that various existing limitations on the First Amendment suggest other limitations exist or should exist:

Those laws exist because they are exceptions to the default. The reason the laws needed to be passed was because under 1A analysis, corporations could use their right of free association to fire an employee for whistleblowing. So we had to pass laws to advance compelling public interests that were in conflict with 1A. The laws exhibit the default standard for balancing employer/employee 1A conflicts that should apply.

You’ve chosen to assert an exception must exist, but your assertion is just as factually vacuous as the claim that a government can suppress speech because free speech exceptions exist. You are trying to move the point of proving to Mike, and off of Musk, Carano, Et. al.. But they are claiming an exception to 1A ROA exists in conflict with the standard evidenced in law.

Yes, exceptions to the 1A right of association exist. Nothing you have introduced indicates an exception exists in this case. Nor a compelling public policy reason courts should force the AADL to retain Neo-Nazi Skinheads, or the NAACP from retaining an active Klansman.

Over on the funny side, both our winners come in response to the story about Jim Jordan. In first place, it’s a quick anonymous quip:

The advertisers should just hide in a locker room. Gym won’t see anything.

In second place, it’s Stephen T. Stone passing along a tweet:

Conservatives: LET THE FREE MARKET DECIDE
Free market: decides
Conservatives: this is outRAGEOUS

(All credit to Twitter user @nhbaptiste.)

For editor’s choice on the funny side, we start out with another anonymous comment about Hillary Clinton’s anti-230 comments:

Considering the American popular opinion of her, maybe this will lead to people recognising the importance of Section 230 out of being contrarian.

It’s an idea.

Finally, it’s Nimrod with a joke about the Supreme Court turning down Nick Sandmann’s lawsuit:

Exit Sandmann…

That’s all for this week, folks!