This week, our first place winner on the insightful side is an anonymous comment about link taxes:
It seems to me that the best way to expose the link tax for what it is (a money grab), is to educate the legislators that a news site (in fact, any site) can use a robots.txt file to deny entry by any/some/all-but other sites on the entire web.
Then, when a news site is asked “Why don’t you use a robots.txt file to keep Google from linking to you?”, the answer will be telling. It’ll either be a) “We didn’t know about that (or some variation, such as it’s too hard, or it doesn’t work, etc.)”; or b) “But we want social media sites to link to us!”.
Given that second answer, it’s now apparent that someone did some excruciatingly bad parenting when raising their child during the phase where they should’ve been teaching said child that one must pay for the things that one wants. In no reality of which I’ve ever heard does one get to be paid for what one wants…. apparently except in Murdoch’s Bizzaro World.
Under normal economic theory, an exchange is defined as something of value goes from each party to the other party, not both things of value go to only one party. Never mind the business of fucking up of the internet, this is even worse than “New Math”. Given half a chance, this “New Economics” will tear down and/or reverse everything we’ve built as as civilization for the past several millennia.
Anybody who says otherwise is accepting bribes to legislate for link taxes, period.
In second place, it’s Samuel Abram with a take on the TikTok ban:
Another point of its lack of constitutionality
I would say the TikTok ban is not only unconstitutional on First
Amendment grounds, but that it’s also a Bill of Attainder: It punishes a
[corporate] person through congress without a trial.
For editor’s choice on the insightful side, we start out with MrWilson offering a not-unreasonably cynical take on the first place winning comment:
They’re not interested in learning more and many of them already know better. They want to be educated in how to win more elections and get more campaign donations. Elected officials who care to know what they’re legislating about would already have educated themselves or sought out expert advice.
Next, it’s TheDumberHalf with a comment about Mike’s review of Jonathan Haidts new book:
Every Day
My kid comes home from school talking about the world ending. Climate changes and war just support her depressive outlook. On top if all this, she knows that getting a well paying job will be difficult at best.
I’m not going to lie to her and tell her everything will be sunshine and rainbows. Her classmates are just as sobering.
We really screwed this up for our kids.
Over on the funny side, our first place winner is Toom1275 with a comment about Texas AG Ken Paxton:
- Demonstrates complete and utter incapacity for comprehending anything law-related
- Demonstrates complete and utter incapacity for comprehending anythung else, either. (AKA is a Republican)
- Delusionally declares losses as victories
- Irrationally simps for E.L.O.N.
Mr. Paxton, do you happen to hatepost as “Matthew” on Techdirt?
In second place, it’s MrWilson again, this time with a comment about Italy restricting “Milano” vehicle production to Italy:
You can call it a Milano if it’s made in Italy. If it’s made anywhere else, it’s just a Sparkling Automobile.
For editor’s choice on the funny side, we start out with an anonymous comment about the effort to extend copyright to codes that are incorporated into the law:
Oh©,© for© Dogs© sake©!© Just© copyright© everything© and© be© done© with© it©.©
Finally, it’s another anonymous commenter, with a cheat sheet for the review of Haidt’s book:
The TL;DR of the pared-down review, for those in a hurry?
“Oh jeez, this asshole? Again?!?”
That’s all for this week, folks!
