Gwiz 's BestNetTech Comments

Latest Comments (4547) comment rss

  • On the post: James O'Keefe Sues Twitter For Defamation… For Shutting Down His Account

    Gwiz ( profile ), 27 Apr, 2021 @ 05:10pm

    That is... uh... not quite what many people would call Mr. O'Keefe's reputation.

    Just reading the link address in that sentence made me laugh.

  • On the post: Sidney Powell Asks Court To Dismiss Defamation Lawsuit Because She Was Just Engaging In Heated Hyperbole… Even When She Was Filing Lawsuits

    Gwiz ( profile ), 24 Mar, 2021 @ 12:52pm

    Re: Schooling

    Dominion is subject to extensive discovery as the suit proceeds.
    Do you really think a company would bring a $1.3 million defamination lawsuit and not know that they would be subject to discovery? I really don't think Dominion is worried about that very much.
    Of course, their machines are solely for the commission of election fraud, that evidence has been out for months.
    Huh. I've never seen any evidence to support this. You know that things that somone's brother's barber's cousin might have seen are not really considered evidence, right?

  • On the post: Utah Prematurely Tries To Dance On Section 230's Grave And Shows What Unconstitutional Garbage Will Follow If We Kill It

    Gwiz ( profile ), 03 Mar, 2021 @ 05:32am

    Re:

    ...not to use "dangerous and derogatory" words. -- You no longer have "free speech" right here!
    What the fuck are you talking about?

  • On the post: Former US Ambassador Sues Apple Because Telegram Users Are Making Him Feel Scared [Update]

    Gwiz ( profile ), 26 Jan, 2021 @ 12:55pm

    UPDATE: Ginsberg has now sued Google for the same thing,

    What's next? Is he going to sue the entire internet and all computer manufacturers because Telegram is available as a desktop version?

    Hey Vanna, can I buy a clue for this guy? If he dosen't want to see what is on Telegraph, DON'T OPEN THE FUCKING APP! This isn't rocket surgery.

  • On the post: A Few More Thoughts On The Total Deplatforming Of Parler & Infrastructure Content Moderation

    Gwiz ( profile ), 16 Jan, 2021 @ 05:17am

    Re: Re: Re: Let go of my Knee, Jerk

    I guess that this was intended to be humorous was not evident enough.
    I think everybody's sarcasm meter took a jolt last week.

  • On the post: While Social Media Was Quick To Highlight And Limit The Spread Of False Claims Of Election Victory, Traditional Media Just Let It Flow

    Gwiz ( profile ), 06 Nov, 2020 @ 10:49am

    Re: Let me get this straight

    I think he's suffering from Premature Election Syndrome.
    Aren't you supposed to see a doctor when your election lasts this long?

  • On the post: Federal Judge Ridiculously Says That Holding A Sign Telling People Cops Are Ahead Is Not Free Speech

    Gwiz ( profile ), 13 Oct, 2020 @ 10:05am

    Re: Re:

    Either mine doesn't or it's not enforced in residential areas
    Most likely it isn't enforced for those stupid kid shaped "slow down" signs. I see those in my area too. A lot of the local laws covering this stuff have wording that says "within x amount of feet of a highway" or "within y amount of feet of a residential road", etc.. The reason I have reaseached this in the past is because it is a intersection of two things important to me: signage (which I make for a living) and the law (which I study as a hobby).

  • On the post: Federal Judge Ridiculously Says That Holding A Sign Telling People Cops Are Ahead Is Not Free Speech

    Gwiz ( profile ), 09 Oct, 2020 @ 01:41pm

    I have researched this subject in the past and this one should be overturned on appeal. It is most definitely protected speech to hold a sign saying "Cops Ahead".

    The problem some other people have had in the past is when the sign is giving motorists some kind instruction, like "slow down". Most localities have laws to stop random people from putting up their own traffic signs (which makes sense) and those laws make signs with instructions to the motorists illegal and therefore not protect by the 1A.

  • On the post: Attorney General To Law Enforcement Critics: Good Luck Getting A Cop When You Need One

    Gwiz ( profile ), 09 Dec, 2019 @ 02:20pm

    Re:

    That sucks for the soldiers, yes. But they chose to serve. Any lack of respect is a price they pay for their choice.
    This article was talking about the Vietnam War era. The draft was in place until 1973. 2.2 million American men were drafted into the military between 1964 and 1973 to fight in Vietnam. They didn't "choose" to serve, it was mandated. I just wanted to clarify that point.

  • On the post: Google And Facebook Didn't Kill Newspapers: The Internet Did

    Gwiz ( profile ), 25 Oct, 2019 @ 09:55am

    Re: To True

    The one thing I worry about is attention span.
    Me too! I worry that ....um .....uh ....um .....what were we talking about again?

  • On the post: DOJ Using The FOSTA Playbook To Attack Encryption

    Gwiz ( profile ), 04 Oct, 2019 @ 09:33am

    Re:

    Stephen, I am curious as to what your stance is on gun control actually is. Do you advocate for a complete ban on guns across the board or is your stance more nuanced than that?

  • On the post: Top Oracle Lawyer Attempting To Gaslight Entire Software Community: Insists APIs Are Executable

    Gwiz ( profile ), 01 Oct, 2019 @ 09:28am

    Linux Wine?

    Will this ruling affect WINE?

    I am curious because it seems to me that WINE is basically a complete rebuild of the Windows API in order to translate it's native function calls into POSIX-compatible function calls.

  • On the post: Adland Shuts Down After Web Host Complies With Bullshit DMCA Notice

    Gwiz ( profile ), 27 Sep, 2019 @ 11:37am

    Re:

    As you'd have to admit, Bridgestone is entirely within rights here.
    I won't admit that because it's completely wrong. Like Tim said the entire point of Adland was to archive and comment on ads and that falls squarely within the Fair Use doctrine. As an aside: Anyone else feeling a Streisandian urge to find the original ad to see what the fuss is all about?

  • On the post: Potentially Big News: Top CEOs Realizing That 'Maximizing Shareholder Value' Isn't A Great Idea

    Gwiz ( profile ), 21 Aug, 2019 @ 01:26pm

    Typo

    "fiduciary duty to shareholers"

    That typo almost seems Freudian.

  • On the post: Big Four Broadcasters Sue Streaming Video Provider Locast, Claim It's 'Aereo 2.0'

    Gwiz ( profile ), 01 Aug, 2019 @ 12:29pm

    Re: Re: except ATT/DirTV are NOT paying retransmission fees

    We are quickly reaching the breaking point with media companies.
    Yep. I've been a loyal DirectTV subscriber for 15 years now. Both the wife and I were employed by a local DirecTV installation company when we first got DirectTV and have been very happy with it up to shortly after AT&T bought them. The first thing we noticed is that the quality of the customer service department went in the toilet. The second thing we noticed is the constant push from them to bundle our internet service and landline (which were already from AT&T) together with our DirecTV. Now we have lost all of the CBS channels including our local broadcaster (which we pay an additional fee to have included). My wife asked if our bill will be prorated for the channels we are no longer receiving and AT&T has no interest in passing the money they are saving by not paying CBS to it's customers. We are now looking into other options - SlingTV, Roku, etc. It only took AT&T a few years to turn loyal DirecTV subscribers into cordcutters.

  • On the post: The FTC And Facebook: Why The $5 Billion Fine Is Both Too Little And Too Much

    Gwiz ( profile ), 16 Jul, 2019 @ 05:36pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    No non-idiot business owner would give up revenue and lay off employees to avoid a higher tax rate. They might do other things such as change the corporate structure, play accounting games, or relocate or something.
    Fair enough. I did think through some of those other examples too, but I wanted something simple as an example considering who I was responding to. The main point I was trying to get across is that any such system will be gamed somehow and I wanted to know how Blue would prevent that. I haven't discounted this idea as something not worth exploring, but the devil would be in the details and all Blue can ever do is scream "TAX THE RICH!" without ever explaining how he would implement such a tax.

  • On the post: The FTC And Facebook: Why The $5 Billion Fine Is Both Too Little And Too Much

    Gwiz ( profile ), 15 Jul, 2019 @ 02:30pm

    Re: Re:

    Thought of another question: 4) How would you keep corporations approaching your threshold from simply moving to different country and how would you attract new businesses to this country with them knowing that they would be penalized for being too successful?

  • On the post: The FTC And Facebook: Why The $5 Billion Fine Is Both Too Little And Too Much

    Gwiz ( profile ), 15 Jul, 2019 @ 02:20pm

    Re: Re:

    Above comment is mine

  • On the post: Why Is The Washington Post Publishing Blatantly False Propaganda About Section 230?

    Gwiz ( profile ), 11 Jul, 2019 @ 06:12pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    You're just trying to muddy up this cesspit -- which is impossible.
      Yep. That's me alright. Trying to "muddy up this cesspit" by quoting exact definitions and quoting actual statutes...... It sometimes amazes me that you still have the ability make me laugh after all these years, Blue.

  • On the post: Why Is The Washington Post Publishing Blatantly False Propaganda About Section 230?

    Gwiz ( profile ), 11 Jul, 2019 @ 02:30pm

    Re:

    ...you pretended to quote the law and SIMPLY DELETED the
    "in good faith" requirement!
      Blue, your lack of intelligence is showing again. "Good faith" is a legal term with a specific definition:
    good faith - n. honest intent to act without taking an unfair advantage over another person or to fulfill a promise to act, even when some legal technicality is not fulfilled. The term is applied to all kinds of transactions.
    47 U.S. Code § 230 says:
    No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of [...] any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected...
    Taken in the context of this law, "good faith" simply means that the service provider must have honest intentions when removing speech they find to be objectionable. Intentions like keeping their site free from antisemitism or pornography or whatever they else they don't want on their site. Once again you have read a legal term, didn't bother to look up the definition and have made yourself look foolish. Just like you did when you were spouting off how BestNetTech's comment submission widget equates to a "form contract".

Next >>