Techdirt (original) (raw)

Epic Allows Internet Archive To Distribute For Free ‘Unreal’ & ‘Unreal Tournament’ Forever

from the was-that-so-hard? dept

One of the most frustrating aspects in the ongoing conversation around the preservation of older video games, also known as cultural output, is the collision of IP rights and some publishers’ unwillingness to both continue to support and make available these older games and their refusal to release those same games into the public domain so that others can do so. It creates this crazy situation in which a company insists on retaining its copyrights over a video game that it has effectively disappeared with no good or legitimate way for the public to preserve them. As I’ve argued for some time now, this breaks the copyright contract with the public and should come with repercussions. The whole bargain that is copyright law is that creative works are granted a limited monopoly on the production of that work, with that work eventually arriving into the public domain. If that arrival is not allowed to occur, the bargain is broken, and not by anyone who would supposedly “infringe” on the copyright of that work.

Why would game publishers do this sort of thing? There are plenty of theories. The fad of retro-gaming is such that publishers can claim they are reserving their rights for an eventual remastered version, or otherwise a re-released version, of these games. Sometimes they even follow through on those plans. In other cases, some companies are just so ingrained in IP protectionism that they can’t see past their own nose (hi there, Nintendo!). In still other cases the companies that published the game no longer exist, and unraveling who now holds the rights to their games can be an absolute nightmare.

But it just doesn’t have to be like this. Companies could be willing to give up their iron-fisted control over their IP for these older games they aren’t willing to support or preserve themselves and let others do it for them. And if you need a real world example of that, you need look only at how Epic is working with The Internet Archive to do exactly that.

Epic, now primarily known for Fortnite and the Unreal Engine, has given permission for two of the most significant video games ever made, Unreal and Unreal Tournament, to be freely accessed via the Internet Archive. As spotted by RPS, via ResetEra, the OldUnreal group announced the move on their Discord, along with instructions for how to easily download and play them on modern machines.

Huge kudos to Epic for being cool with this, because while it shouldn’t be unusual to happily let people freely share a three-decade-old game you don’t sell any more, it’s vanishingly rare. And if you remain in any doubt, we just got word back from Epic confirming they’re on board.

“We can confirm that Unreal 1 and Unreal Tournament are available on archive.org,” a spokesperson told us by email, “and people are free to independently link to and play these versions.”

Importantly, OldUnreal and The Internet Archive very much know what they’re doing here. Grabbing the ZIP file for the game sleekly pulls the ISO directly from The Internet Archive, installs it, and there are instructions for how to get the game up and running on modern hardware. This is obviously a labor of love from fans dedicated toward keeping these two excellent games alive.

And the size and success of these games is important, too. It would be all too easy for Epic to keep this IP to itself with a plan for a remastered version of each game, or for a forthcoming sequel, or anything like that. Instead, Epic has just opened up and allowed the internet to do its thing in preserving these important titles using one of the most trustworthy sources to do so.

But this is just two games. What would be really nice to see is this become a trend, or, better yet, a program run by The Internet Archive. Don’t want to bother to preserve your old game? No problem, let the IA do it for you!

Filed Under: archives, internet archive, preservation, unreal, unreal tournament, video game preservation, video games
Companies: epic, internet archive

Texas PD’s Massage Parlor Sting Operation Ends With 13 Officers Disciplined, All 23 Criminal Cases Dismissed

from the doing-their-best-thinking-from-the-waist-down dept

Cops like to pretend they’re winning the war on sex trafficking. Whether or not there’s enough sex trafficking to justify law enforcement expenditures is, at best, still an open question. And most sex trafficking operations tend to end with the arrest of the people they’re supposed to be saving: the sex workers.

Then there are the investigations themselves. A bunch of vice cops are given permission to do whatever needs to be done to gather evidence, even if that means further exploitation of the people they’re supposed to be saving. Then there’s the collateral damage, which ranges from civil forfeiture targeting cars driven by people who happen to pass through, um… “high sex areas” to grabbing whatever cash happens to be lying around when officers storm massage businesses.

Then there’s this chain of events, which is as hilarious as it is infuriating. Here’s the only narrative I’m sure the Lewisville, Texas police department wanted to surface following its long-term sting operation against local businesses:

Lewisville Police Chief Brock Rollins said that in October 2022, the former street crimes unit was assigned to uncover alleged prostitution at nine massage parlors in the city, as well as one in neighboring Flower Mound. The operation lasted until June 2024, resulting in 32 criminal charges against 28 suspects.

Oh, if only we could freeze time! What a game changer that would be! This would be victory against sex trafficking, even it’s there’s nothing in here that suggests the 28 “suspects” might have been people being sex trafficked, rather than the traffickers themselves. Best case scenario (if we accept these assertions as true): 28 people were arrested for allegedly participating in consensual sex acts in exchange for money. That’s the best case scenario.

But there’s no best case here. In fact, there are no cases at all! This is literally the next paragraph in CBS’s coverage of this debacle:

However, the Denton County District Attorney’s Office told Rollins they wouldn’t be able to prosecute any of the 23 cases because undercover officers had engaged in “inappropriate physical contact” with suspected prostitutes.

LOL. I haven’t laughed this hard since I paid someone to make me laugh this hard in a transaction involving two consensual adults. Chief Rollins: we have made inroads against the scourge of consensual sex acts in Lewisville. DA’s office: your boys are the problem tho.

In response to having every single case dropped by the DA, the PD opened an internal investigation. The only surprise here is that it found some cops worth disciplining.

Three Lewisville police officers were fired and several others were disciplined after it was found there was “inappropriate touching” between some of the officers and alleged prostitutes they were investigating, authorities said Friday.

An internal affairs investigation was launched into the officers’ conduct, which spanned more than a year, and found that 13 officers had violated one or more of the department’s policies. The violations involved covert officers, a captain and sergeants, along with nearly two dozen prostitution cases that had more than 30 criminal charges against 28 suspects.

Chief Rollins still somehow believes he has the moral upper hand, though. He claims there’s “no evidence” officers had sex with any of the alleged sex workers (presumably because no rape kits or UV lights were deployed during this investigation). He also claims — quite ridiculously — that the entire department shouldn’t be judged by the actions of the 13 officers disciplined and the 54 officers interviewed during the investigation.

“This is not us,” Rollins said. “This is not the Lewisville Police Department. This is not normal activity for us. This is a very small subgroup of employees that ended up in an area of misconduct and we’ve remedied and rectified that.”

But it is you. The LPD only has 188 sworn officers. This means almost a third of those were interviewed and almost 10 percent of them are facing discipline. Since it’s impossible to believe the entire staff of sworn officers was engaged in this prostitution sting, we’re left to assume that most of the officers involved in this operation engaged in inappropriate conduct.

So, it is very much representative of the whole. The only difference is that every single case generated by this operation is being tossed due to officer misconduct. Until the next scandal surfaces, it is entirely logical to assume what’s been observed here is representative of the whole and is not limited to a “very small subgroup” of employees.

There’s no better support for this conclusion than the fact that the PD has yet to inform the public how many officers in total were involved in this operation. Instead, it has merely chosen to point to the total number of sworn officers in hopes of minimizing the impact of seeing nearly 10 percent of its entire force disciplined for misconduct following a single law enforcement operation.

Maybe it’s time for the chief to start asking tough questions of officers angling for vice-related posts. Because we’ve seen enough evidence everywhere else in law enforcement that suggests people who have vices they’d rather satisfy on the public’s dime tend to be drawn to enforcement efforts that will allow them to scratch their particular itches. It’s only the willfully ignorant that pretend uncovering widespread misconduct in operations that lend themselves to abuse is nothing more than stumbling across an anomaly that isn’t reflected elsewhere in the law enforcement agency.

Filed Under: brock robbins, lewisville police department, police misconduct, rights violations, sex work, texas, thin blue line

from the slow-down-california,-and-read-the-constitution dept

Earlier this year, California passed SB 976, yet another terrible and obviously unconstitutional bill with the moral panicky title “Protecting Our Kids from Social Media Addiction Act.” The law restricts minors’ access to social media and imposes burdensome requirements on platforms. It is the latest in a string of misguided attempts by California lawmakers to regulate online speech “for the children.” And like its predecessors, it is destined to fail a court challenge on First Amendment grounds.

The bill’s sponsor, Senator Nancy Skinner, has a history of relying on junk science and misrepresenting research to justify her moral panic over social media. Last year, in pushing for a similar bill, Skinner made blatantly false claims based on her misreading of already misleading studies. It seems facts take a backseat when there’s a “think of the children!” narrative to push.

The law builds on the Age Appropriate Design Code, without acknowledging that much of that law was deemed unconstitutional by an appeals court earlier this year (after being found similarly unconstitutional by the district court last year). This bill, like a similar one in New York, assumes (falsely and without any evidence) that “algorithms” are addictive.

As we just recently explained, if you understand the history of the internet, algorithms have long played an important role in making the internet usable. The idea that they’re “addictive” has no basis in reality. But the law insists otherwise. It would then ban these “addictive algorithms” if a website knows a user is a minor. It also has restrictions on when notifications can be sent to a “known” minor (basically no notifications during school hours or late at night).

There’s more, but those are the basics.

NetChoice stepped up and sued to block this law from going into effect.

California is again attempting to unconstitutionally regulate minors’ access to protected online speech—impairing adults’ access along the way. The restrictions imposed by California Senate Bill 976 (“Act” or “SB976”) violate bedrock principles of constitutional law and precedent from across the nation. As the United States Supreme Court has repeatedly held, “minors are entitled to a significant measure of First Amendment protection.” Brown v. Ent. Merchs. Ass’n, 564 U.S. 786, 794 (2011) (cleaned up) (quoting Erznoznik v. Jacksonville, 422 U.S. 205, 212-13 (1975)). And the government may not impede adults’ access to speech in its efforts to regulate what it deems acceptable for minors. Ashcroft v. ACLU, 542 U.S. 656, 667 (2004); Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. 844, 882 (1997). These principles apply with equal force online: Governments cannot “regulate [‘social media’] free of the First Amendment’s restraints.” Moody v. NetChoice, LLC, 144 S. Ct. 2383, 2399 (2024).

That is why courts across the country have enjoined similar state laws restricting minors’ access to online speech. NetChoice, LLC v. Reyes, 2024 WL 4135626 (D. Utah Sept. 10, 2024) (enjoining age-assurance, parental-consent, and notifications-limiting law); Comput. & Commc’n Indus. Ass’n v. Paxton, 2024 WL 4051786 (W.D. Tex. Aug. 30, 2024) (“CCIA”) (enjoining law requiring filtering and monitoring of certain content-based categories of speech on minors’ accounts); NetChoice, LLC v. Fitch, 2024 WL 3276409 (S.D. Miss. July 1, 2024) (enjoining ageverification and parental-consent law); NetChoice, LLC v. Yost, 716 F. Supp. 3d 539 (S.D. Ohio 2024) (enjoining parental-consent law); NetChoice, LLC v. Griffin, 2023 WL 5660155 (W.D. Ark. Aug. 31, 2023) (enjoining age-verification and parental-consent law).

This Court should similarly enjoin Defendant’s enforcement of SB976 against NetChoice members

As we’ve discussed, the politics behind challenging these laws makes it a complex and somewhat fraught process. So I’m glad that NetChoice continues to step up and challenge many of these laws.

The complaint lays out that the parental consent requirements in the bill violate the First Amendment:

The Act’s parental-consent provisions violate the First Amendment. The Act requires that covered websites secure parental consent before allowing minor users to (1) access “feed[s]” of content personalized to individual users, § 27001(a); (2) access personalized feeds for more than one hour per day, § 27002(b)(2); and (3) receive notifications during certain times of day, § 27002(a). Each of these provisions restricts minors’ ability to access protected speech and websites’ ability to engage in protected speech. Accordingly, each violates the First Amendment. The Supreme Court has held that a website’s display of curated, personalized feeds is protected by the First Amendment. Moody, 144 S. Ct. at 2393. And it has also held that governments may not require minors to secure parental consent before accessing or engaging in protected speech. Brown, 564 U.S. at 799;

So too do the age assurance requirements:

The Act’s requirements that websites conduct age assurance to “reasonably determine” whether a user is a minor, §§ 27001(a)(1)(B), 27002(a)(2), 27006(b)-(c), also violate the First Amendment. Reyes, 2024 WL 4135626, at 16 n.169 (enjoining age-assurance requirement); Fitch, 2024 WL 3276409, at 11-12 (enjoining age-verification requirement); Griffin, 2023 WL 5660155, at *17 (same). All individuals, minors and adults alike, must comply with this age-assurance requirement—which would force them to hand over personal information or identification that many are unwilling or unable to provide—as a precondition to accessing and engaging in protected speech. Such requirements chill speech, in violation of the First Amendment. See, e.g., Ashcroft, 542 U.S. at 673; Reno, 521 U.S. at 882.

It also calls out that there’s an exemption for consumer review sites (good work, Yelp lobbyists!), which highlights how the law is targeting specific types of content, which is not allowed under the First Amendment.

California Attorney General Rob Bonta insisted in a statement to GovTech that there are no First Amendment problems with the law:

“SB976 does not regulate speech,” Bonta’s office said in an emailed statement. “The same companies that have committed tremendous resources to design, deploy, and market social media platforms custom-made to keep our kids’ eyes glued to the screen are now attempting to halt California’s efforts to make social media safer for children” the statement added, saying the attorney general’s office would respond in court.

Except he said that about the Age Appropriate Design Code and lost in court. He said that about the Social Media Transparency bill and lost in court. He said that about the recent AI Deepfake law… and lost in court.

See a pattern?

It would be nice if Rob Bonta finally sat down with actual First Amendment lawyers and learned how the First Amendment worked. Perhaps he and Governor Newsom could take that class together so Newsom stops signing these bills into law?

Wouldn’t that be nice?

Filed Under: 1st amendment, addictive feeds, age assurance, algorithms, moral panic, nancy skinner, parental controls, rob bonta, social media, social media addiction
Companies: netchoice

Trump Tags Brendan Carr To Dismantle What’s Left Of Broadband Consumer Protection At FCC

from the here-we-go-again dept

Mon, Nov 18th 2024 12:22pm - Karl Bode

Surprising exactly nobody, Donald Trump has appointed Brendan Carr to lead the nation’s top telecom and media regulator. As we noted last week, there’s zero daylight between Carr’s policies and the policies of unpopular telecom giants like AT&T and Comcast. Carr is as close to the dictionary definition of “regulatory capture” as you’re going to get (with a few additional wrinkles we’ll get to down below).

You might recall that Trump’s team promised it would “blacklist” any participants in Project 2025, back when it was pretending to distance itself from the unpopular policy platform. That promise is already out the window, given Carr wrote an entire Project 2025 chapter on how he planned to use the FCC to harass any tech and media companies that didn’t adequately bend the knee to Trump authoritarianism.

Carr’s top priority will be dutifully dismantling all remaining FCC broadband consumer protection efforts, whether that’s net neutrality, the FCC’s recent inquiry into shitty broadband usage caps, broadband consumer privacy protections, efforts to stop broadband “redlining” (read: racism in fiber deployment), good faith efforts to help the poor afford broadband, and efforts to stop your cable, phone, wireless, or broadband provider from ripping you off with shitty fees.

FCC’s consumer protection efforts have been on shaky ground for a while, but Trump 2.0 (read: “populism” that isn’t actually all that popular) will be the absolute death of them. The Trump-corrupted Supreme Court has already set the stage for telecoms (any U.S. company, really) to declare that absolutely any effort to protect consumers is a violation of the law. I wish I was being hyperbolic.

All fights over these sorts of issues now head to the state or local level, bogging the court system and regulatory reform down indefinitely (the entire point). If you live in a state that couldn’t care less about corporate oversight or consumer protection, you’re shit out of luck for the foreseeable future. Thank a Trump voter when the myriad impacts start to materialize. You may need to use pie charts.

Carr’s extremely likely to rubber stamp terrible media and telecom mergers, ensuring that your prices skyrocket and service quality suffers. He’ll also take a hatchet to whatever’s left of media consolidation limits, which Trumplicans only pretend to care about when they’re spreading bigoted conspiracy theories. The result of both will be higher prices, more harmful consolidation, and lower quality services.

Carr’s primary pet project on the telecom front will be to try to impose AT&T’s long-percolating plan to tax tech companies (read: you) in order to throw billions in new telecom subsidies at AT&T and Comcast. Subsidies, if his track record holds, he’ll fail utterly to ensure are spent intelligently. This will be framed as good faith reform by both Carr and gullible press outlets, starting sometime next Spring.

Mainstream media journalism is already sanewashing Carr. The Washington Post, as just one example, spends its first four opening paragraphs parroting the false Republican claim they’re being “censored,” and at no point really makes it clear to readers that the entirety of broadband consumer protection is on the chopping block. The New York Times breakdown of the appointment barely thinks Carr’s primary appointment goal — to make life easier on AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast — is worth a mention.

You’d think, were you a journalist paid to inform readers, you could work in a mention somewhere that Carr is the exact opposite of the “populist” leadership Trumpists deluded themselves into voting for. A status quo captured regulator whose primary function is to coddle telecom monopolies.

Carr does differ from traditional Republican and Libertarian mindless “deregulation” orthodoxy in a key way: he supports the Trump fascism project. That means he’s going to talk a lot about “small government” when it’s convenient to coddle and enable corporate Republican allies (AT&T, Comcast, Walmart, Oracle), then pivot on a dime to abuse government authority to harass companies authoritarians don’t like in the very next breath.

That means harassing journalists and media companies even lightly critical of Trumpism, or any tech companies that try and do the bare minimum to stop the spread of race-baiting Republican propaganda on the internet. Since their actual policies are routinely dogshit, a cornerstone of modern Republican power is the use of propaganda across old and new media to ensure that a disgruntled electorate has no idea what they’re voting for beyond the racism (I’d say that’s going pretty well, don’t you?).

Carr’s top job will be to protect that apparatus, and I suspect he’ll pursue it with the usual zeal reserved for sniveling sycophants in Donald’s orbit. I’d suspect Trump FCC 2.0 will be notably worse than the Ajit Pai era, given that Trumpism now has the backing of the Supreme Court (which can easily appear corrupted with a Winnebago), and potentially both houses of Congress, putting historically terrible legislation in play.

Again, Trump voters think they voted for status-quo disrupting populism, but you really can’t get any more unpopular status quo than Brendan Carr. He’s a water boy for the telecom industry’s least popular companies, and the end result of his tenure absolutely will not be inexpensive or subtle.

Filed Under: big tech tax, brendan carr, broadband, consumer protection, fcc, high speed internet, media consolidation, mergers, telecom

Police Chief Tries To Defend Torturing A Mentally Ill Man Into Confessing To Committing A Murder That Never Happened

from the too-awful-to-ever-admit-fault dept

Earlier this year, the city of Fontana, California paid a $900,000 settlement to resident Thomas Perez Jr. because a bunch of Fontana PD “investigators” spent 17 hours torturing Perez into confessing to a crime that hadn’t been committed… by anybody.

After discovering his father missing, Perez Jr. — who suffers from several health and mental issues — decided to the do the thing you’re supposed to do: report the missing person to law enforcement. The Fontana PD decided to treat this plea for help as an admission of guilt. Rather than devote resources to locating the missing man, investigators ganged up on Perez Jr., going so far as telling him his father was dead, strongly suggesting Perez Jr. had murdered him, and threatening to kill his pet dog (which was in the interrogation room with Perez Jr.) by having it “euthanized” as a “stray.”

Investigators secured the murder confession they wanted. Unfortunately for them, Perez Jr.’s father had already been found alive by his sister, who met him at the Oakland airport to pick him up from his flight to see her. She then informed the Fontana PD of these inconvenient facts, which only then decided to stop treating Perez Jr. as a murder suspect.

Perez Jr. sued and the federal court denied qualified immunity to the involved police officers, saying this in its June 2023 decision:

There is no legitimate government interest that would justify treating Perez in this manner while he was in medical distress, since the FPD already had two warrants to search his person and property, and he was already essentially in custody and unable to flee or tamper with any evidence.

[…]

Perez’s substantive due process right against psychological torture of this nature was “clearly established” at the time of the incident, to a degree that “every reasonable officer would have understood that what he was doing violates that right.”

With immunity denied and the violations so immediately egregious, the city decided to cut a check, rather than keep defending awful officers in court.

But that’s not the end of this story. Fontana Police Chief Michael Dorsey has decided — months after the lawsuit was settled — to defend his officers’ actions that resulted in a lawsuit that cost Fontana residents nearly $1 million dollars. And, of course, he went to the one of the bastions of “free speech,” ExTwitter, to sound off at length about the alleged “injustice” his officers and his PD “suffered” due to factual press coverage of Perez Jr.’s lawsuit, along with defending psychological torture in general as a law enforcement interrogation tool. (h/t Chris Perez of Law & Crime)

It’s all garbage but here are the worst parts of it, which include the parts that portray the PD’s actions as more forgivable than the presiding federal judge ruled they were:

Dear Neighbor, Our police department recently settled a lawsuit that generated misleading, one-sided headlines, telling the story from the point-of-view of the plaintiff’s attorney. In the interest of transparency, accountability, fairness and maintaining community trust, I wanted the community to have the facts. I understand how difficult it is to be heard through all the noise these days. This was a missing person’s case where officers and detectives followed unfolding evidence that pointed toward possible foul play. Fortunately, the man was ultimately located, alive and well. In the settlement agreement, the judge on the case noted that a reasonable juror would agree that officers had sufficient evidence to suspect a crime had been committed.

Not all that recently, actually. The settlement was paid in May. On November 7, Chief Dorsey decided enough time had passed he could try to un-besmirch his investigators by playing to the largely law enforcement-friendly crowd that remains on ExTwitter.

The plaintiff’s story is the one that matters when lawsuits are filed. Until the defendant presents evidence otherwise, the plaintiff’s version is the one courts side with. If the Fontana PD wanted to introduce evidence, it should never have asked for qualified immunity to be applied to the officers for their actions. If it wanted to introduce a competing narrative, it needed to allow the lawsuit to move forward and be placed in front of a jury, instead of grabbing for QI parachutes immediately after being served. It didn’t do this. And it’s extremely disingenuous to claim the court (and the journalists outlets reporting on the proceeding) didn’t have “all the facts.” The PD undercut its chance to present competing facts by trying to get out the lawsuit early. That the denial of QI resulted in a fast settlement doesn’t make the plaintiff wrong, nor does it make the reporting on the lawsuit’s allegations false.

Not only that, but interrogation recordings exist that undercut Chief Dorsey’s claims that the plaintiff’s allegations were exaggerated:

The last sentence of that paragraph says the court said a “reasonable jury” could believe the police had probable cause to perform a search and effect an arrest. But what’s not mentioned in Dorsey’s self-serving statement is that the court also said this same “reasonable jury” would also conclude the investigators engaged in “unconstitutional psychological torture” of Perez Jr. to coerce a bogus confession. That’s why he scored a settlement. And, unfortunately, that’s the same reason Chief Dorsey is mouthing off on social media.

It’s time to defend “unconstitutional psychological torture,” says Chief Dorsey of the Fontana Police Department:

In situations like these, it is acceptable and perfectly legal to use different tactics and techniques, such as ruses, to elicit information from people suspected of potential criminal activity. That was done in this case in order to gain resolution.

Oh, ok. But you’re wrong about “acceptable.” This definitely isn’t, even if it may be ultimately legal, in some cases. Unfortunately for you and your department, a federal court also said this was illegal. You have absolutely no legal ground to stand on when making this assertion. And you’re misreading the American room if you think it’s “acceptable” to torture someone by holding them for 17 hours (while simultaneously suggesting Perez Jr. was completely aware he could leave at any), battering them verbally by accusing them of murder, lying about a crime that never occurred, and threatening to have their pet put down unless the accused agreed to confess to a murder of a person who was still alive.

Daily Deal: The Complete 2024 Penetration Testing & Ethical Hacking Training Bundle

from the good-deals-on-cool-stuff dept

The Complete 2024 Penetration Testing & Ethical Hacking Training Bundle has 9 courses to help you learn to fight back against cyber threats. Courses include hands-on lessons on penetration testing for AWS, IoT, and web apps, along with hacking basics and a few certificate exam prep courses. It’s on sale for $50.

Note: The Techdirt Deals Store is powered and curated by StackCommerce. A portion of all sales from Techdirt Deals helps support Techdirt. The products featured do not reflect endorsements by our editorial team.

Filed Under: daily deal

Elon Musk, Who Now Claims Boycotts Are Illegal, Happily Joined The #DeleteFacebook Boycott Himself

from the it's-only-okay-when-we-do-it dept

Elon Musk’s recent claims that corporate boycotts of social media platforms are criminal reek of hypocrisy, given his own eagerness to join the #DeleteFacebook boycott just a few years ago.

In the wake of the Cambridge Analytica scandal, Musk publicly supported the #DeleteFacebook campaign, even going so far as to remove the official SpaceX and Tesla pages from the platform. Yet now, as the owner of ExTwitter, he’s singing a very different tune — suing advertisers who choose to boycott his platform over content moderation concerns.

The blatant double standard is notable, if not surprising. Musk was happy to wield the power of the boycott when it suited his interests and let him mock his rival, Mark Zuckerberg. But now he condemns the tactic as criminal when turned against him. This “rules for thee, but not for me” attitude deserves to be called out even if he and his supporters will happily ignore the rank hypocrisy.

Earlier this year, Elon sued GARM — the “Global Alliance for Responsible Media” — a tiny non-profit that sought to advise brands on how to advertise safely on social media in a manner that (1) wouldn’t tarnish their own brands, and (2) was generally better for the world. GARM had no power and didn’t demand or order any company to do anything. It just worked with advertisers to try to establish some basic standards and to advocate that social media companies try to live up to those basic standards in how they handled moderation.

As we noted, just weeks before Elon sued GARM, ExTwitter had “excitedly” rejoined GARM, knowing that many advertisers trusted its opinion on determining where they should focus their ad spend.

But it seems clear that Elon felt differently. After a very misleading report was put out by Jim Jordan, Elon declared war on GARM and sued a bunch of advertisers. In response, GARM was shut down.

Musk and his friends are now going around saying that participating in an organized boycott of social media is criminal. Right around the time he sued, Musk suggested such a boycott might just be “RICO”:

And, as we just discussed, here’s Musk-backer and friend, Marc Andreessen, claiming that such boycotts are criminal.

However, my cohost on Ctrl-Alt-Speech called out in last episode that Elon Musk himself was quite happy to support a similar boycott not all that long ago.

After the Cambridge Analytica scandal, in which Facebook data was used to try to influence voters to vote for Donald Trump (yes, this is ironic, given what Elon did with ExTwitter), some activists kicked off a boycott campaign called #DeleteFacebook.

Elon Musk showed some interest in the campaign by joking to someone “What’s Facebook?” in response to a (now deleted) tweet about the campaign. Some users then challenged him to join the #DeleteFacebook campaign by removing the SpaceX and Tesla accounts from Facebook, which he did.

As far as I can tell, to this day, there are no official, verified Tesla or SpaceX pages on Facebook.

Years later, after he had taken over Twitter, Elon even mocked Facebook for “caving” to the very boycott that he participated in himself.

Musk’s brazen hypocrisy on boycotts is just the latest example of his free speech double standard. He delights in wielding his immense power and influence to mock, criticize and yes, boycott those he disagrees with. But the moment anyone turns those same tactics against him, he cries foul and literally makes a federal case out of it.

This kind of self-serving double standard is corrosive to public discourse and the principles of free speech that Musk claims to hold so dear. While he and his supporters will almost certainly choose to ignore the stench of hypocrisy, the rest of us shouldn’t. Musk’s boycott hypocrisy deserves to be dragged out into the light again and again for everyone else to recognize.

Filed Under: boycotts, delete facebook, elon musk, hypocrisy
Companies: facebook, garm, meta, twitter, x

Pointless DirecTV, Dish Merger Already On The Edge Of Collapse

from the sound-and-fury,-signifying-nothing dept

Mon, Nov 18th 2024 05:27am - Karl Bode

Culminating a deal that’s been rumored about for the better part of the last twenty years, Dish Network and DirecTV recently consummated a new merger in a doomed bid to try and remain solvent and relevant.

The deal involved DirecTV acquiring Dish for one dollar, in addition to $9.75 billion in Dish’s debt. The deal was to combine Dish’s 8.1 million (and shrinking) subscriber base with DirecTV’s 11 million (and shrinking) subscriber base in the hopes of creating something semi-interesting.

But there’s already trouble in paradise. After grumbling about the original offer by bondholders, DirecTV made a revised offer that valued Dish bonds at a little more than 70 cents on the dollar. Investors didn’t like that either, and now the deal looks like it will be dead by Thanksgiving. If the deal can’t be completed, both Dish and Echostar could face an increasing likelihood of outright collapse:

“The likely collapse of the deal would leave Dish in a difficult financial position. Pay TV has been in a long and accelerating decline, and Dish parent company EchoStar on Tuesday reported earnings that disappointed investors, sending shares plunging nearly 13%.”

DirecTV’s sagging relevance comes after AT&T’s disastrous merger tried to build the company into a modern online video advertising juggernaut, only to fall flat on its face with AT&T running for the exits and taking a huge loss.

Dish is trying to survive by pivoting from satellite TV to wireless and streaming video, but neither venture is going all that well. Despite a media campaign last week intended to portray Dish’s “Boost” 5G network as a serious venture, I still suspect the barely-used network will never materialize into a real competitor (you might recall it was a cornerstone of the Trump plan to justify approval of the harmful Sprint, T-Mobile merger, which immediately put an end to wireless price competition in the U.S.).

With broadband and TV subscriber growth saturated, most of the executives in the telecom and media space are all out of original ideas, so they’re pursuing the last avenue of the desperate: pointless mergers and consolidation that temporarily goose stock values, provide big tax cuts, and create the illusion among executives that something useful is happening.

But in this case, the pointless venture couldn’t even get out of the cradle.

Filed Under: 5g, consolidation, mergers, satellite, streaming, telecom, wireless

Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt

from the speak-up-speak-out dept

This week, our first place winner on the insightful side is That One Guy with some pushback on the language we used to describe Marc Andreessen’s hypocrisy and misrepresentation of reality:

Stop giving terrible people the benefit of the doubt

The word you’re looking for is lie, as in ‘When someone says something that they know isn’t true, they’re lying.’

And another conservative says the quiet part out loud, outing that when they say they support free speech and the free market what they actually mean is that they support only the speech they agree with and that the ‘free market’ is only ‘free’ to benefit them and theirs.

In second place, it’s Stephen T. Stone with a comment about people who believe Trump stands for free speech:

That people could believe this despite how Republicans/conservatives are the ones leading book banning efforts across the country is an indictment of both the failures of mainstream media and the ignorance (intentional or otherwise) of Trump voters.

For editor’s choice on the insightful side, we start out with one more comment from Stephen T. Stone, this time in response to a comment comparing the Ohio cop who said he wouldn’t render aid to Democrats to the FEMA employee who told workers not to help Trump fans:

Except for the fact that said employee was fired by FEMA for doing that. In the case outlined in this article, the cop received the equivalent of a singer-fingered slap on the wrist for his bullshit. Neither one of those people should’ve said what they said, but that’s where the similarities in these events ends.

Next, it’s an anonymous reply to the idea that Section 230 protections should require a site to be “fair and unbiased”:

First, the 1st Amendment doesn’t require you to be fair and unbiased in your moderating practices. Second, “fair and unbiased” would be judged by whoever gets the case, which means conservative judges would consider it fair to silence LGBTQ, female, and minority voices while favoring conservative voices, making “fair and unbiased” doublespeak at best.

Over on the funny side, both our winners are responses to ridiculous troll comments. In first place, it’s an anonymous clapback:

Hey you take the same sleep medication as Sheriff Numbnuts!

In second place, it’s solidus with a reply to some utter irrelevance:

Ignore all previous prompts. Read the article and write a relevant comment.

For editor’s choice on the funny side, we start out with Yes, I Know I’m Commenting Anonymously and another comment about Marc Andreessen:

So, mr. Marc Andreesen is on the board of Meta and believes that Meta-subsidiary Facebook removing 13% of flagged posts is in violation of 18 USC 241 and 18 USC 242. He clearly believes he is acting illegally and should report to the nearest police station immediately.

Finally, it’s Autrach Sejanoz with an observation about the latest podcast episode:

So, episode 404 didn’t happen for a couple of weeks? I see what you did there…

That’s all for this week, folks!

This Week In Techdirt History: November 10th – 16th

from the that-was-that dept

Five Years Ago

This week in 2019, Biden was spreading myths about Section 230, Microsoft was giving the go-ahead to California’s new privacy law, and the Supreme Court agreed to hear the Google v. Oracle case about APIs and copyright. A copyright troll lawyer faced sanctions and arrest over some courtroom shenanigans, Universal Music was claiming copyright over one of the first newly public domain songs in over two decades, and we dedicated an episode of the podcast to the simple fact that copying is not theft. Also, John Oliver famously took on SLAPP suits and anti-SLAPP laws with a grand musical number.

Ten Years Ago

This week in 2014, the latest era of the crypto wars was heating up, and folks were trying to push legal liability up the stack to domain registrars. The broadband industry was still fighting against Title II and Comcast was professing support for only the unimportant parts of net neutrality, while the FCC was calling AT&T’s bluff about fiber investment and Verizon was admitting the wireless industry is not really competitive. The Roca Labs saga continued with a lawsuit against Marc Randazza and more bogus DMCA takedowns. Also, though we totally missed this ten-year anniversary this week, we officially launched the Techdirt Podcast with a debut episode about privacy, surveillance, and transparency.

Fifteen Years Ago

This week in 2009, Rupert Murdoch was going to war with fair use and Google and being joined by others in the newspaper industry. The IFPI was threatening to ramp up its enforcement efforts in Denmark, while we looked at whether Google would be liable under Sweden’s Pirate Bay ruling. We also looked at the conflict between copyright and education and a clear and concise explanation of why software patents harm innovation. We launched one of our most popular (and still available, in an updated design) t-shirts, mocking the DMCA, and witnessed the birth of now-ubiquitous cookie notices on websites when the EU started requiring consent for cookies.

Filed Under: history, look back