Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt

This week, our first place winner on the insightful side is Thad with a comment about Mark Zuckerberg’s pathetic deference to Trump:

I’ve said it before, but what’s even the point of having that level of wealth if you’re just going to debase yourself for somebody like Trump?

For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world and forfeits his spine?

In second place, it’s Citizen with a comment about Elon Musk’s hypocritical site blocking on ExTwitter:

Doxxing is whatever Musk says it is.

This is a classic right-wing tactic. Claim to support a certain freedom, but then change the rules along the way so that only the in-group has that freedom in practice.

It’s doxxing because Musk says it’s doxxing. If it doesn’t qualify even under Musk’s definition, he’ll change the definition so it does qualify. If someone Musk likes does something that qualifies under the new definition, Musk will change the definition again such that they no longer fall afoul of the rules.

He’ll still claim to be all for free speech, though, and his fans will still agree with his assertion. They’ll tie their brains in knots trying to come up with logically consistent justifications for doxxing ever so conveniently only ever being something done by people Musk dislikes.

As Abigail Thorn recently pointed out, though, it’s not really about facts. It’s about values, and about finding “facts” to justify those values. What values would those be? You’ve seen it quoted in comments here before:

“Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit:

“There must be in-groups whom the law protectes [sic] but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.”

–Frank Wilhoit

“Free speech” for people like Musk is really just the “freedom” to publicly agree with him. It is ultimately he who decides what is and isn’t covered by “free speech,” not based on anything logical or consistent, but based on how he feels. With all due respect (by which I mean none) to a certain far-right propagandist, Musk’s feelings don’t care about facts.

For editor’s choice on the insightful side, we’ve got a pair of comments about Florida’s “halo law” that makes it easier for cops to arrest people for filming them, both in response to another comment asking what affordances police should have to prevent interference from the public. First, it’s an anonymous answer:

i think the line is “actual interference”. As in, not when a cop notices something that bugs them, then willfully abandons their duties to harass someone else. The onlyones interfering with the cops there are the cops.

You get in the way of arriving vehicles or servants, physically get in the way of their duties or efforts, then you’re interfering. i don’t know why this is hard. Cops have cams too. Hell, they can outright make shit up that contradicts what the cams show and still get their way 90% of the time. We don’t need an extra law where cops can estimate 25 feet as 100 feet based on their feelings.

Next, it’s MrWilson keeping the focus where it belongs:

The burden of the legislators is to show that there’s actually a need for the law and its associated restraint on Constitutional rights, not for citizens to have to justify their rights in order to keep them. And bad actors actually interfering is already illegal and able to be charged as an offense, but also shouldn’t be used as justification for curbing rights of those who aren’t interfering. This law allows a cop to walk towards someone and thus create an illegal act out of a legal act simply by their proximity. It’s like cops telling someone to step off the curb and then arresting them for jaywalking. This will be abused by petty cops on a power trip and it won’t protect scenes from interference.

Over on the funny side, our first place winner is Flakbait with a comment about Jeff Bezos blocking an editorial cartoon for criticizing billionaires:

Washington Post’s new motto: “Democracy Dies in DC”

In second place, it’s Strawb with another comment about Elon’s hypocrisy:

Double the standards, double the fun!

For editor’s choice on the funny side, we’ll start out with an anonymous reply to that comment, offering another version of the joke (which also racked up a lot of insightful votes):

If it weren’t for double standards, Republicans would have none at all.

Finally, it’s tanj with a comment on our post about Chief Justice Roberts complaining about people criticizing the judiciary:

Yet another “article” that thinks it’s acceptable to criticize the aristocracy.

That’s all for this week, folks!