Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt

This week, our first place winner on the insightful side is Pixelation with a comment about banning TikTok:

Banning TikTok will open the door to the real threat, government control of communication platforms. I would say it’s a republican wet dream, but it’s also a democrat one as well.

In second place, it’s That One Guy with a comment about Senator Durbin’s attack on Section 230:

There are idiot senators but none should be allowed that as an excuse

And the ‘There are no honest and/or reality-based arguments against 230’ streak remains unbroken since the law’s inception…

In the year 2024, it is beyond ridiculous that so many senators do not understand Section 230 and just keep misrepresenting it, to the point of wishing to repeal it (and with it, the open internet).

With great power should come higher expectations. These are senators, I have no doubt that if they asked one of their staff they could easily get a dozen experts on the law in question on the line within the day so to the extent they ‘do not understand Section 230’ the do not deserve the benefit of the doubt in assuming that it’s not willful ignorance rather than an honest lack of knowledge.

For editor’s choice on the insightful side, we start out with another comment from That One Guy, this time about Trump saying the right things about a TikTok ban for the wrong reasons:

Given who we’re talking about I guarantee his ‘support’ has nothing to do with realizing the ban would be unconstitutional and is entirely contingent upon him believing that opposing the ban benefits him more right now than continuing to support it.

The second that changes he will be back to ‘TikToc is the enemy of the public and must be stopped!’

Next, we’ve got T.L. digging into the problems with the idea:

Forcing a sale is not unconstitutional itself, it’s the threat or imposition of a ban on a platform that hosts speech in order to facilitate the sale that is. The federal government can restrict access to an app or website on government-owned devices, but it can’t dictate whether the public can or cannot access them on personal devices; First Amendment-protected materials are usually exempted from federal trade restrictions.

The First Amendment precludes embargoes on the importation or exportation of various forms of print, audio and video materials, broadcast materials, artwork and other images, methods of personal communication, and other informational materials (that includes software, which TikTok constitutes). These restrictions on materials protected by the First Amendment (regardless of their country of origin) are already enshrined in the Berman Amendments of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act and the Trading with the Enemy Act.

Over on the funny side, our first place comment is an anonymous comment about license plate readers and “vehicle cloning”:

This was NOT how I imagined downloading cars would work…

In second place, it’s another anonymous comment, this time about the 5th Circuit ruling that age verification isn’t a First Amendment violation:

The next question is if you’re allowed to show obscene material to a frozen embryo, after you have verified that the embryo has been in storage for more than 18 years.

For editor’s choice on the funny side, we’ll keep it going with two more anonymous comments, the first on Trump’s TikTok comments:

When it comes to Trump’s statements, it’s always important to remember: any similarity to actual persons or events is entirely coincidental.

And finally, one responding to a typo in one of our posts:

The drub habits will continue until morale improves.

That’s all for this week, folks!