A burst of cynicism from Matt Drudge

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Breotan**

The Drudge Report is a web site that posts links to other news sites. Matt chooses which articles he links to but rarely generates any original content. Recently he gave an interview to someone that I don't really care for and thus won't provide a link to the article. Instead I'll quote it here so you can read it without feeling the need to shower after.

The questions here are, is Matt Drudge correct in his assertions? Is he overstating things? Is there some other side to these issues that he is missing or omitting?

Paul Joseph Watson wrote:MATT DRUDGE: COPYRIGHT LAWS COULD OUTLAW LINKING TO WEBSITES

Matt Drudge warns that the very foundation of the free Internet is under severe threat from copyright laws that could ban independent media outlets, revealing that he was told directly by a Supreme Court Justice, “It’s over for me.”

During an appearance on the [Breotan's Edit: some person's show], Drudge asserted that copyright laws which prevent websites from even linking to news stories were being advanced.

“I had a Supreme Court Justice tell me it’s over for me,” said Drudge. “They’ve got the votes now to enforce copyright law, you’re out of there. They’re going to make it so you can’t even use headlines.”

“To have a Supreme Court Justice say to me it’s over, they’ve got the votes, which means time is limited,” he added, noting that a day was coming when simply operating an independent website could be outlawed.

“That will end (it) for me – fine – I’ve had a hell of a run,” said Drudge, adding that web users were being pushed into the cyber “ghettos” of Twitter, Facebook and Instagram.

“This is ghetto, this is corporate, they’re taking your energy and you’re getting nothing in return – nothing!”

Drudge warned that social media giants like Twitter and Facebook were swallowing up content and strangling the organic growth of independent Internet news platforms. Automated news aggregators like Google News also came under fire.

“Google News – hello anybody? The idiots reading that crap think there is actually a human there – there is no human there – you are being programmed to being automated even up to your news….a same corporate glaze over everything,” said Drudge.

“Stop operating in their playground, stop it,” said Drudge, asserting that people were being confined by what the likes of Facebook and Twitter defined as the Internet as a result of this “corporate makeover” of the web.

“I’m just warning this country that yes, don’t get into this false sense that you are an individual when you’re on Facebook, no you’re not, you’re a pawn in their scheme,” concluded Drudge.

**Jimsolo**

People who purchased this story also purchased: aluminum foil and Hat Making for Dummies.

**Ouze**

Breotan wrote:
The questions here are, is Matt Drudge correct in his assertions?

no

Breotan wrote:
Is he overstating things?

yes

Breotan wrote:
Is there some other side to these issues that he is missing or omitting?

yes, pretty much all of 17 U.S. Code § 107. It explicitly states reporting as a fair use.

If he were reproducing the entirety of their content without adding any transformation to it, he might be right to be worried, but he doesn't. He takes a story, links to it with his own slant/headline, and calls it a day. The argument that linking to a publicly accessible webpage and reposting none of the content, even the title, would be copyright infringement would get laughed out of any court in the country.

No one ever is going to pass a law otherwise, IMO.

**daedalus**

I would expect the EFF to be up in arms about such a thing, but I haven't heard anything.

When was this posted?

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, the only primary seeming reference to this I could find was infowars.

Much as I never miss the chance to gripe about how fundamentally obscene Copyright is in this country, I think this is a "nothing to see here" moment.

**Ouze**

daedalus wrote:
Much as I never miss the chance to gripe about how fundamentally obscene Copyright is in this country, I think this is a "nothing to see here" moment.

Matt Drudge is a proven liar, so the idea that he would make stuff up for page hits isn't exactly a reach. What is surprising is we're discussing another right wing bs story less than like, 48 hours after the last one, or something.

**Frazzled**

"laws are being advanced" which means anything. A law could be advanced banning the internet. Until it gets submitted, and passed out of a committee its ass farts in the breeze.

**daedalus**

Ouze wrote:

Matt Drudge is a proven liar, so the idea that he would make stuff up for page hits isn't exactly a reach. What is surprising is we're discussing another right wing bs story less than like, 48 hours after the last one, or something.

I thought he was a celebrated producer of fiction, like infowars, Art Bell, and PR drones.

**Ouze**

daedalus wrote:
Ouze wrote:

Matt Drudge is a proven liar, so the idea that he would make stuff up for page hits isn't exactly a reach. What is surprising is we're discussing another right wing bs story less than like, 48 hours after the last one, or something.

I thought he was a celebrated producer of fiction, like infowars, Art Bell, and PR drones.

Speaking of infowars, it's the source

**daedalus**

I think I'd be willing to give it the benefit of the doubt, and maybe in this one, very specific case, he was given poor information and probably further misunderstood what exactly was being suggested, and then flew off to a wild conclusion. (ironic face)

Such a thing, suggested in the broad terms he has, would kill off far more than him, including a lot of legitimate business that has deep pockets.

**ScootyPuffJunior**

daedalus wrote:
Ouze wrote:

Matt Drudge is a proven liar, so the idea that he would make stuff up for page hits isn't exactly a reach. What is surprising is we're discussing another right wing bs story less than like, 48 hours after the last one, or something.

I thought he was a celebrated producer of fiction, like infowars, Art Bell, and PR drones.

At least Art Bell was entertaining.

Seriously though Breotan, do you just cruise every right wing nutjob website to look for things to post in the OT? Because this is like the third time this week that you've dumped this garbage on us and every time it's been wrong. First was saying Rush didn't say the things he most definitely said, then was the InfoWars (lol) "CNN is make this half black person look white because... NARRATIVE!" and now it's the Dredge Report (lol) linking InfoWars (lol again) with another dumpster treasure.

**Ouze**

It's not all bad, this thread has brought us the phrase "dumpster treasure".

Kind of makes me think of, you know, a web-based version of American Pickers, where you go to the crappiest websites, and root around in their garbage piles, and then squint, pick up some garbage clickbait, blow some dust off, and then murmur - "oh yeah, this right here. This is worth a few pageviews - to the right people". Then, nod knowingly into the camera.

**curran12**

Ouze wrote:
It's not all bad, this thread has brought us the phrase "dumpster treasure".

Kind of makes me think of, you know, a web-based version of American Pickers, where you go to the crappiest websites, and root around in their garbage piles, and then squint, pick up some garbage clickbait, blow some dust off, and then murmur - "oh yeah, this right here. This is worth a few pageviews - to the right people". Then, nod knowingly into the camera.

"Now I'm willing to give you 10 retweets for this story on 'Unfriending is Harassment' article."

**Ouze**

curran12 wrote:
"Now I'm willing to give you 10 retweets for this story on 'Unfriending is Harassment' article."

I know exactly what network is right for this.

**d-usa**

I'm waiting with baited breath on the next "I heard this on infowars..." thread that will grace our glorious DakkaDakka soon.

**Breotan**

Ouze wrote:
I know exactly what network is right for this.

Spoiler:

The fact that MSNBC isn't in there just shows how biased it is.

As for why I'm posting these articles, the point (at least my point) is to get discussion going about something other than shootings, evil cops, or terrorism.

As for Drudge being a liar, he can't sit back and let Dan Rather and Peter Jennings have all the fun, can he?

**ScootyPuffJunior**

Ouze wrote:
I know exactly what network is right for this.

Spoiler:

Is JJ Abrams directing it?

Breotan wrote:
The fact that MSNBC isn't in there just shows how biased it is.

As for why I'm posting these articles, the point (at least my point) is to get discussion going about something other than shootings, evil cops, or terrorism.

As for Drudge being a liar, he can't sit back and let Dan Rather and Peter Jennings have all the fun, can he?

Of course they're biased, no one is claiming otherwise. You, on the other hand, rush to post absurdly biased and untrue story after story, passing each one off as gospel truth until the more rational among us call your gak.

Maybe some self-reflection on your part is in order, considering how easily these stores catch you hook, line, and sinker. It would be more helpful that just shouting, "Yeah, well... X, Y, Z does it too!" and going to dig up another false poutrage story.

**Breotan**

ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
Of course they're biased, no one is claiming otherwise. You, on the other hand...

1. I was speaking to Ouze.
2. Did you not see the emoticon? Or did you ignore it deliberately?

ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
You, on the other hand, rush to post absurdly biased and untrue story after story, passing each one off as gospel truth until the more rational among us call your gak.

Nothing better speaks of rational thought than an ad hominem attack, right? This thread is about an interview with Matt Drudge which did happen and the quotes I copy/pasted are accurate. I posted it and then asked if anyone agreed with Matt's premise or not. I never passed Matt's opinions as "the gospel truth" or anything else for that matter.

ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
Maybe some self-reflection on your part is in order, considering how easily these stores catch you hook, line, and sinker. It would be more helpful that just shouting, "Yeah, well... X, Y, Z does it too!" and going to dig up another false poutrage story.

Please, oh please do tell me when I have ever shouted, "Yeah, well... X, Y, Z does it too!" As far as your "false stories" claim, the only thread I've made that caught me contained a false story was the one about the photoshopped image of the Oregon shooter. Even then, the thread topic was always about media manipulation in general, not the oregon shooter coverage specifically. The photoshopped pic posted on AJ's site was used as the lead-in to the discussion. Once it was found to be a fake, I replaced the false article with the one from Snopes because I wanted to make sure the information was accurate and the conversation stayed on topic instead of devolving into a debate about the specific article posted.

As for self reflection, perhaps you should do a little yourself and remember Dakkadakka's RULE #1. It applies to the Off Topic forum, too.

**Alpharius**

Actually, RULE #1 applies everywhere on Dakka Dakka, at all times.

**Kilkrazy**

I don't see how copyright law as it stands could ban linking to websites.

Linking to a site is conceptually the same as referring to something in an article or in conversation. All public discourse would be closed down. Academic papers would all become illegal. If I said, "Did anyone see the article in today's Evening Standard about XXX" it would become a violation of copyright.

This would be ridiculous. It would require a special and quite weird interpretation of law.

Weirder things have happened, though.

(To be fair to Breotan, he did change the Shopping thread once he found out the truth. Credit where credit is due.)

**Ouze**

Breotan wrote:
The fact that MSNBC isn't in there just shows how biased it is.

I was trying to illustrate sites that have a casual disregard for the truth, rather than sites that simply have bias (because truthfully all of them have at least some bias). That's why neither Fox News, nor MSNBC, nor Daily Beast, nor Daily Caller, nor the Huffpo are in there, and why CNN is sort of in there, way in the back, lost (I feel like they earned it with that missing plane\black hole theory).

I'm avoiding sites that try to adhere to truth in journalism - i.e, if they run a story that turns out not to be true, they hold responsible the person(s) who were responsible. I think most big news networks have run at least one untrue story at some point; but when someone runs an untrue story and then fires or disciplines the person who was responsible for it, that doesn't rise to the repeated, reliable casual disregard to the truth you see from outlets like Newsmax or Breitbart.

**Breotan**

It. was. a. joke. I put that emoticon there for a reason. Is it not showing up on your browser?

Edit: Actually, it wasn't so much a joke as a snarky comment. But still...

**Ouze**

Just explaining that I actually had a rationale with which icons were picked

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Breotan wrote:
As for why I'm posting these articles, the point (at least my point) is to get discussion going about something other than shootings, evil cops, or terrorism.

Oh, and FWIW, I agree with you. That's why I posted that space thread the other day. I whine a lot about how much the OT sucks while being fully cognizant I contribute mightily to that dynamic; my only "contributions" as of late are just picking holes in other people's ("the other teams") arguments with much more snark than leads to any kind of useful discourse in the future, while observing that this place doesn't have any useful discourse.

In short, I've become exactly what I used to hassle someone else on this forum about.

So at least as of right around the same time you did, I realized that yeah, maybe I should make an effort to try and at least not be part of the constant vitriol; although I think that's going to be a slow process probably with my natural caustic instincts leading me to settle back into my bad habits. I think the photoshop was at least pretty funny.

**whembly**

Ouze wrote:
Just explaining that I actually had a rationale with which icons were picked

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Breotan wrote:
As for why I'm posting these articles, the point (at least my point) is to get discussion going about something other than shootings, evil cops, or terrorism.

Oh, and FWIW, I agree with you. That's why I posted that space thread the other day. I whine a lot about how much the OT sucks while being fully cognizant I contribute mightily to that dynamic; my only "contributions" as of late are just picking holes in other people's ("the other teams") arguments with much more snark than leads to any kind of useful discourse in the future, while observing that this place doesn't have any useful discourse.

In short, I've become exactly what I used to hassle someone else on this forum about.

So at least as of right around the same time you did, I realized that yeah, maybe I should make an effort to try and at least not be part of the constant vitriol; although I think that's going to be a slow process probably with my natural caustic instincts leading me to settle back into my bad habits. I think the photoshop was at least pretty funny.

Kudos to you buddy.

I know I'm one of those "gak disturber" too.

I think we're at the point that we can banter and call each other out w/o resorting to reddit style lynching.

**Alpharius**

[Jots down some more names on The List. Underlines others...]

**Kilkrazy**

Group hug, everyone?

Back on topic, when you think about it the entire WWW consists of pages with embedded links to other pages. It is the whole point of the sytem.

How you could copyright ban this without destroying the entire strucutre I have no idea.

**Peregrine**

Breotan wrote:
This thread is about an interview with Matt Drudge which did happen and the quotes I copy/pasted are accurate. I posted it and then asked if anyone agreed with Matt's premise or not. I never passed Matt's opinions as "the gospel truth" or anything else for that matter.

But what's the point in posting it at all? Why dig up some random blog post from a source with zero credibility and show it to everyone? What purpose could it possibly have besides giving us something to laugh at briefly? I mean, you even realized the problem when you posted it because you edited out the fact that it was from infowars. It makes about as much sense as finding some random blog post about mind control in the chemtrails and the black helicopter base on the dark side of the moon and asking "hey guys, is this right". You know the answer is "no", and if you don't then you should.

Kilkrazy wrote:
Back on topic, when you think about it the entire WWW consists of pages with embedded links to other pages. It is the whole point of the sytem.

How you could copyright ban this without destroying the entire strucutre I have no idea.

Exactly. This is why it's such an obviously absurd idea, the entire concept of the internet is built on linking to stuff. And nobody, especially not large and influential corporations, wants the internet to go away. So even if there's some obscure interpretation of copyright law that could ban linking to a site it's very obvious that nobody is ever going to apply that interpretation.

And FFS, outlawing having your own website? That makes the infowars 9/11 conspiracy nonsense look like reasonable analysis...

**sebster**

I liked the bit about Drudge being personally told by a Supreme Court justice how he's done for. Like justices sit there reviewing proposed legislation and if something looks bad they drop their coffee and rush to get Matt Drudge on the phone to tell him how he personally might be affected. And of course the justice had to remain anonymous because he was giving away big news, and not because, you know, Drudge was making all of this up.

It gave me this perfect vision of Drudge's world, on the steps of the Supreme Court, Drudge standing there in his stupid fedora, as a secretive justice told Drudge the bad news, using his robe to cover his face to protect his identity. Just for good measure Frank Costanza's lawyer was there as well, in his cape.

Incidentally, possibly the worst thing to come out of the whole Clinton blowjob scandal may have been Matt Drudge.

**Frazzled**

Kilkrazy wrote:
Group hug, everyone?

Back on topic, when you think about it the entire WWW consists of pages with embedded links to other pages. It is the whole point of the sytem.

How you could copyright ban this without destroying the entire strucutre I have no idea.

I could see it (sort of) like music. If you use a song you have to pay a royalty. The links are effectively using a story (song) for your personal benefit.
Thats the only thing I can think of, but a new law makes reasoning irrelevant if it (or a reg which would be the real fear) is passed.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

sebster wrote:
I liked the bit about Drudge being personally told by a Supreme Court justice how he's done for. Like justices sit there reviewing proposed legislation and if something looks bad they drop their coffee and rush to get Matt Drudge on the phone to tell him how he personally might be affected. And of course the justice had to remain anonymous because he was giving away big news, and not because, you know, Drudge was making all of this up.

It gave me this perfect vision of Drudge's world, on the steps of the Supreme Court, Drudge standing there in his stupid fedora, as a secretive justice told Drudge the bad news, using his robe to cover his face to protect his identity. Just for good measure Frank Costanza's lawyer was there as well, in his cape.

Incidentally, possibly the worst thing to come out of the whole Clinton blowjob scandal may have been Matt Drudge.

It was Ginsberg. She was on her wave to a rave when they bumped into each other at the clothing store. That girl can party.

**Breotan**

Sort of related to Drudge's original claim that the votes are in...

The 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled in favor of Google for their Google Books project. No word in the article about appealing to the full Circuit Court or appealing to the Supreme Court.

Mario Trujillo wrote:Google Books prevails in copyright lawsuit

The 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday ruled that Google Books does not infringe the copyright protections of authors.

The court handed the technology giant a major victory over a series of authors who had sued over the decade-old project, in which Google makes digital copies of books picked out by major libraries and allows the public to view snippets online.

The three-judge panel affirmed a lower court's decision from 2013 that found Google's project falls within the limits of fair use because the work is meaningfully transformed and does not offer the public a meaningful substitute to buying the book.

According to reports, Google had estimated it could owe billions if it lost the case.

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of Jim Bouton, author of "Ball Four"; Betty Miles, author of "The Trouble with Thirteen"; and Joseph Goulden, author of "The Superlawyers."

So, even though Google did not write it, they can profit from it apparently.

**Yodhrin**

Ouze wrote:
Breotan wrote:
The questions here are, is Matt Drudge correct in his assertions?

no

Breotan wrote:
Is he overstating things?

yes

Breotan wrote:
Is there some other side to these issues that he is missing or omitting?

yes, pretty much all of 17 U.S. Code § 107. It explicitly states reporting as a fair use.

If he were reproducing the entirety of their content without adding any transformation to it, he might be right to be worried, but he doesn't. He takes a story, links to it with his own slant/headline, and calls it a day. The argument that linking to a publicly accessible webpage and reposting none of the content, even the title, would be copyright infringement would get laughed out of any court in the country.

No one ever is going to pass a law otherwise, IMO.

Reviewing and parody are supposed to be covered under fair use as well, didn't stop media corporations twisting the DMCA takedown system into a weapon to use against critics. Drudge is a cretin, no doubt, but when it comes to corporate power and copyright I think, given their past behaviour and previously stated ambitions, a touch of tinfoil hattery is entirely justifiable on this subject IMO.