Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Thursday January 11 2018, @08:38PM   Printer-friendly
from the clarifying-things dept.

Submitted via IRC for FatPhil

Good news out of the Ninth Circuit: the federal court of appeals heeded EFF's advice and rejected an attempt by Oracle to hold a company criminally liable for accessing Oracle's website in a manner it didn't like. The court ruled back in 2012 that merely violating a website's terms of use is not a crime under the federal computer crime statute, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. But some companies, like Oracle, turned to state computer crime statutes—in this case, California and Nevada—to enforce their computer use preferences.

This decision shores up the good precedent from 2012 and makes clear—if it wasn't clear already—that violating a corporate computer use policy is not a crime.

Source: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/01/ninth-circuit-doubles-down-violating-websites-terms-service-not-crime


Original Submission

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 11 2018, @09:05PM (30 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 11 2018, @09:05PM (#621084)

    A user agrees to a contract, and then breaches that contract.

    That is definitely grounds for a civil lawsuit.

    • (Score: 4, Informative) by Arik on Thursday January 11 2018, @09:13PM (10 children)

      by Arik (4543) on Thursday January 11 2018, @09:13PM (#621091) Journal
      Except no one agreed to any contract. Agreeing to a contract requires affirmative, informed consent, and compensation, neither of which are present here.

      --
      "This font is your font, you can't see my font."
      • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 11 2018, @09:21PM (3 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 11 2018, @09:21PM (#621093)

        If you take that tact, then contract law means nothing; if there is no contract law, then there is no society—there is just "Might makes Right".

        Caveat Emptor is the foundation of Civilization.

        I never hear you folks arguing against the common notion that "Ignorance of the Law is no excuse, Citizen!" The same applies here; law by contracts is just as important (if not more) than law by legislation.

        • (Score: 5, Informative) by Arik on Thursday January 11 2018, @10:07PM (2 children)

          by Arik (4543) on Thursday January 11 2018, @10:07PM (#621131) Journal
          "If you take that tact, then contract law means nothing"

          I disagree. It's the tact of pretending contracts can be unilaterally imposed like this that effectively means contract law means nothing.

          It's very important. And it's based on consent. Not unilateral imposition.
          --
          "This font is your font, you can't see my font."
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 11 2018, @10:11PM (1 child)

            by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 11 2018, @10:11PM (#621136)

            We seem to disagree on whether there is imposition; I disagree that there is such a thing.

            Anyway, there are a number of comments in here that more or less capture my position, so I'll simply refer the reader to the rest of the discussion.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 12 2018, @01:52AM

              by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 12 2018, @01:52AM (#621224)

              Ignorance of the LAW is no excuse. Ignorance of a contract, means there is no contract! Come a little closer, AC, so I can violently imposition you, sans contract! Ah Ha, me mateys! Run up the Skull and Cross-bones! There be booty hereabout!

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 11 2018, @09:26PM (5 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 11 2018, @09:26PM (#621098)

        What are you talking about? The transaction is thus: The user agrees to the usage contract, and in return gets to use the website.

        If you don't like a usage contract, then don't agree to it; don't use that website.

        "But... I don't like this." is not a valid argument against these things.

        • (Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 11 2018, @09:41PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 11 2018, @09:41PM (#621112)

          Well, by that argument, does that also apply to any linked code from other sites? You viewed it. Are you now beholden to any TOS from those adware and malware spewing pieces of trash?

        • (Score: 4, Interesting) by tftp on Thursday January 11 2018, @09:45PM (1 child)

          by tftp (806) Subscriber Badge on Thursday January 11 2018, @09:45PM (#621117) Homepage

          That would require giving access only to the registered users - who during sign-up confirmed the contract in some meaningful way. Every company that has anything to keep private does that. Try to get some datasheets without signing up, or some 3D models... Registration at professional, industrial websites is expected because in return you get information that is not obtainable otherwise, anywhere.

          A user of a regular website does not achieve informed consent because he does not read the conditions and does not have to accept the offer. In your own example "The user agrees to the usage contract, and in return gets to use the website" the user can easily not agree to the contract and still use the website. To block the alternative the regular website has to be converted to "registered users only" - and the visitor count will drop to 1% of the previous number because nobody is going to register to just read an article. The attention span of an Internet user is 5 seconds.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 11 2018, @09:50PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 11 2018, @09:50PM (#621120)

            The only problem is one of enforcement. As someone else noted, a restaurant that gives out free bread shouldn't surprised that some people abuse its resources.

            There's nothing inherently non-binding about a Terms of Service; it's just not practical to enforce in the case that you outlined, and part of the government has now explicitly stated that you cannot use its CRIMINAL JUSTICE machinery to enforce it either.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 12 2018, @01:56AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 12 2018, @01:56AM (#621225)

          I do not agree to the terms, and I still use the website. What are you going to do about it? If you don't want me using your website, you should get it the frick off of the goddamned network, because by allowing use of your website by those who explicitly do not agree to your terms, you are agreeing to their terms, that they can use your website in any manner they wish that is technically feasible. Contracts swing both ways, which is why most alt-right libertarians are gay.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 12 2018, @08:30AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 12 2018, @08:30AM (#621302)

          What are you talking about? The transaction is thus: The user agrees to the usage contract, and in return gets to use the website.

          That's all fine on sites that require login.

          But on websites that don't require login, the user gets to use the website even though he didn't agree to the contract. And the people running those websites would be really sad if the 99.99% of users who didn't agree to any contract suddenly went away.

    • (Score: 5, Touché) by Justin Case on Thursday January 11 2018, @09:25PM (15 children)

      by Justin Case (4239) Subscriber Badge on Thursday January 11 2018, @09:25PM (#621096) Journal

      Terms of Service for this post: by fetching this text from the soylentnews.org web server, or by directing your client software to fetch this text from the soylentnews.org web server, you hereby agree to these Terms of Service:

      * You is defined as any Anonymous Coward, and your is defined as referring to anything belonging to any Anonymous Coward.

      * You hereby acknowledge receiving consideration in the form of this text, containing valuable educational information, and in exchange You agree to send me all your money.

      * You agree in the event of any dispute to try the matter in my court, where I am judge and my decisions are final and cannot be appealed. You further agree to pay all associated court costs, which I will determine.

      If You do not agree to these Terms of Service, do not fetch this post or read this text.

      Now then, since you read my Terms of Service, and took the indicated action to signal your consent, and received consideration, we have a binding contract. Kindly post your account numbers and passwords, thank you.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 11 2018, @09:31PM (3 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 11 2018, @09:31PM (#621104)
        • You are like a restaurant that serves free bread; you cannot get angry when a customer eats said bread and then gets up and walks away without buying anything—just like it was the restaurants' choice to send out bread, it was your choice to publish that comment for my consumption.

          Now, if I had to click "I Agree" before receiving some portion of your comment, then that's an entirely different matter.

        • Ultimately, what makes a contract work is whether it can be enforced.

          Can you enforce your supposed contract?

          What the Courts have said here is that a particular contract is not a matter of criminal law, and thus cannot be enforced by the criminal justice system.

        • (Score: 2) by vux984 on Thursday January 11 2018, @10:52PM (2 children)

          by vux984 (5045) on Thursday January 11 2018, @10:52PM (#621160)

          Your not really wrong about the whole internet thing, but you shouldn't assume your free bread is free.

          "You are like a restaurant that serves free bread; you cannot get angry when a customer eats said bread and then gets up and walks away without buying anything"

          In a lot of places, the free bread is not free. If you touch the basket it, its added to your bill; in some places accepting the basket to your table adds it to your bill. In a lot of such places, the bread is then removed from your bill by placing an order, because the bread is free with the purchase of a meal. In most places, adding it and removing it from your bill is academic; ... unless you decide to leave without ordering.

          A lot of restaurants in North America would let you leave without issue if you had to leave for some reason without placing an order (it happens) and its just a cost of doing business and creates good will. But if you started showing up to eat free bread and then leave, you'd rapidly discover its not free anymore.

          "just like it was the restaurants' choice to send out bread"

          They offered bread, you accepted it. They also offer you drinks...do you assume you can drink them and leave too?

          • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 11 2018, @11:00PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 11 2018, @11:00PM (#621162)

            That is all.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 12 2018, @08:35AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 12 2018, @08:35AM (#621305)

            Why? Just why?

            Over here the waiter brings the bread once you have ordered. Problem solved.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 11 2018, @09:36PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 11 2018, @09:36PM (#621107)

        Bite me

      • (Score: 3, Informative) by bob_super on Thursday January 11 2018, @09:38PM (8 children)

        by bob_super (1357) on Thursday January 11 2018, @09:38PM (#621110)

        You cannot bind people by a contract they did not get a chance to review before its application. That's law 101.

        You can also get a court to invalidate clearly abusive clauses in contracts between private parties.

        • (Score: 2) by Justin Case on Thursday January 11 2018, @09:44PM (6 children)

          by Justin Case (4239) Subscriber Badge on Thursday January 11 2018, @09:44PM (#621114) Journal

          So you'd agree that any AC who hits Reload on this page is certainly bound by the contract?

          Anyway, I'm the court (as You agreed) so I'm unlikely to invalidate any of my clauses.

          • (Score: 5, Funny) by bob_super on Thursday January 11 2018, @09:51PM

            by bob_super (1357) on Thursday January 11 2018, @09:51PM (#621121)

            Last time I went around slapping stickers on luxury cars that said "by reading this, you agree to give me this car", the judge told me that your legal opinion was wasn't even worth the paper it didn't get printed on.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 11 2018, @09:52PM (3 children)

            by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 11 2018, @09:52PM (#621122)

            So, no.

            Try again.

            • (Score: 2) by Justin Case on Thursday January 11 2018, @10:30PM (2 children)

              by Justin Case (4239) Subscriber Badge on Thursday January 11 2018, @10:30PM (#621149) Journal

              Reload is an "interaction" with the page containing (among other things) my stuff.

              But now, You are pwned even by your own logic.
              • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 11 2018, @10:48PM (1 child)

                by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 11 2018, @10:48PM (#621157)

                It doesn't matter what your website does.

                • (Score: 3, Touché) by Justin Case on Thursday January 11 2018, @11:06PM

                  by Justin Case (4239) Subscriber Badge on Thursday January 11 2018, @11:06PM (#621165) Journal

                  It doesn't matter what your website does.

                  Yeah, that's the point I'm trying to illustrate: it doesn't matter how many lawyer-words you pile on a website saying "you agree if you do this", it is still possible the visitor didn't agree.

                  When you hit reload to interact with your local software, you invoked this clause: "by directing your client software to fetch this text". Your local software then conveyed your interaction to the website; your agent, at your direction and acting on your behalf, interacted with the page containing my Terms of Service.

                  You can't just unilaterally declare "by interacting" (or by any other thing) "you agree", because I do not agree with that declaration, therefore I don't agree that by doing $WHATEVER I became bound by your words.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 12 2018, @02:18PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 12 2018, @02:18PM (#621379)

            You, however, have no power to enforce anything. So you would have to take your case to a real court to get any enforcement done. I doubt any judge would recognise the validity of any judgements made by your court, therefore your court is pointless.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 12 2018, @12:36AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 12 2018, @12:36AM (#621203)

          The bigger problem is that you have no practical way to talk to anyone and negotiate the terms of the 'contract'; it's all or nothing.

      • (Score: 2) by requerdanos on Friday January 12 2018, @02:12PM

        by requerdanos (5997) Subscriber Badge on Friday January 12 2018, @02:12PM (#621375) Journal

        Now then, since you read my Terms of Service, and took the indicated action to signal your consent, and received consideration, we have a binding contract.

        For the dense of sense, an explanation: This is sarcasm to illustrate a salient point. If you are proposing some argument along the lines of "there is a contract," you are not only completely wrong, but this absurd example is a natural extension of your complete wrongness.

        You can't simply say "If you do what you were doing anyway, I unilaterally force on you some terms." Fortunately, neither the universe nor criminal nor civil law work that way. It would be stupid if they did.

    • (Score: 2) by crafoo on Friday January 12 2018, @12:16AM

      by crafoo (6639) Subscriber Badge on Friday January 12 2018, @12:16AM (#621194)

      No meeting of the minds. No reasonable consideration for the benefits/rights you are supposedly giving up. No mechanism to amend clauses you do not agree with.

      No sir. No, there is not a valid contract in place.

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by ledow on Friday January 12 2018, @01:22PM (1 child)

      by ledow (5567) on Friday January 12 2018, @01:22PM (#621355) Homepage

      A contract and a licence / usage agreement are very different things.

      Though one may include a clause which requires adherence to the other, they are entirely different documents, with different requirements and penalties.

      Everything from "you hereby agree to this contract if you park in this car park" to shrink-wrap EULAs have been thrown out of courts worldwide for such things, more precisely: not being a contract.

      Additionally, a contract has to be fair, have informed, mutual consent and (legalese ahead) be "a meeting of minds" (i.e. something you both reasonably agree to where you both move the same kind of distance towards compromise for).

      You can't just draft some nonsense, stick it on a website that's completely open, and then pretend it's enforceable.

      Certainly not if, like the shrink-wrap EULAs, you can only find those terms out by accessing the website, running the software, tearing open the box etc. and then you're immediately bound by them (i.e. some kind of mystical psychic ability is necessary to "consent in an informed manner" to them).

      Put what you don't want seen behind a login wall, make people agree contracts for supplying that login. Shut off those logins if they cheat the contract.

      • (Score: 2) by requerdanos on Friday January 12 2018, @02:25PM

        by requerdanos (5997) Subscriber Badge on Friday January 12 2018, @02:25PM (#621381) Journal

        You can't just draft some nonsense, stick it on a website that's completely open, and then pretend it's enforceable...

        Put what you don't want seen behind a login wall, make people agree contracts for supplying that login. Shut off those logins if they cheat the contract.

        This is a clear, succinct statement of this entire issue, using simple, easy-to-understand words and phrases. Well done.

  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Justin Case on Thursday January 11 2018, @09:09PM (4 children)

    by Justin Case (4239) Subscriber Badge on Thursday January 11 2018, @09:09PM (#621086) Journal

    Read TFA. Didn't read all the linked legalese.

    But it seems to me if I put some info on my web site, and I don't want $JOE to get it, then when $JOE comes asking, my web server shouldn't give it to him. If I configure my web server to allow all requests, then I've consented to $JOE's request.

    They can apparently distinguish the requests they don't like, otherwise how would they know they are occurring? So don't respond to the unwanted requests.

    Is the court saying you must treat all clients equally? Or merely that you can't use the courts to do things you neglected to do in your web server config?

    • (Score: 4, Informative) by frojack on Thursday January 11 2018, @09:44PM

      by frojack (1554) Subscriber Badge on Thursday January 11 2018, @09:44PM (#621115) Journal

      Is the court saying you must treat all clients equally? Or merely that you can't use the courts to do things you neglected to do in your web server config?

      I think its the latter. The courts do not concern themselves with trivialities. De Minimis Non Curat Lex [duhaime.org] and are not about to get involved with evaluating 7 billion versions of terms of service and alleged violations there of.

      Its not law, its not even contract law, its just wishful thinking of websites.

      This was never an issue until ad-blockers became a thing. (Yes people got turfed for bad behavior on some sites, but nobody won that court case either. And the court now said the sites aren't going to win when going after their patrons.

      But bear in mind, that this is the 9th. And the with a 79% reversal rate, there's no reason to believe this will stand. Big business depends on the ability to enforce some rules on their sites and some transgressions by users approach injury to revenue. So expect an appeal. The ruling is probably too broad and Oracle has the money and lawyers to burn.

      --
      No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
    • (Score: 2) by jelizondo on Thursday January 11 2018, @09:46PM (2 children)

      by jelizondo (653) on Thursday January 11 2018, @09:46PM (#621118)

      After reading the legalese, the answer is bit more subtle: using a website or its contents contrary to the Terms of Use does not constitute criminal activity while it might be grounds for civil action.

      The crux of the matter rests on the law being considered (expressly California and Nevada) which make it a crime to access computers (i.e. a website) without authorization, but since you agreed to the Terms of Use, you were therefore authorized and therefore committed no crime; of course the computer owner may sue you for damages, copyright infringement or take other actions against you.

      In this particular case, the website was being accessed by the defendant using a valid customer ID, so clearly it was authorized to use the website.

      • (Score: 4, Informative) by frojack on Thursday January 11 2018, @10:03PM (1 child)

        by frojack (1554) Subscriber Badge on Thursday January 11 2018, @10:03PM (#621127) Journal

        In this particular case, the website was being accessed by the defendant using a valid customer ID, so clearly it was authorized to use the website.

        Exactly.

        They had valid access.

        They broke house rules. So kick them off, and the matter is finished, there is no recourse to the courts for this.

        The panel reversed the district court’s judgment after
        trial with respect to Oracle’s claims under the California
        Comprehensive Data Access and Fraud Act, the Nevada
        Computer Crimes Law, and California’s Unfair Competition
        Law. The panel held that taking data from a website, using
        a method prohibited by the applicable terms of use, when the
        taking itself generally is permitted, does not violate the
        CDAFA or the NCCL.

        Now Oracle still won a copyright terms violation portion, but the
        penalties were tossed out.

        The panel affirmed the district court’s partial summary
        judgment and partial judgment after trial on Oracle’s claims
        that Rimini infringed its copyright by copying under the
        license of one customer for work performed for other
        existing customers or for unknown or future customers,
        rather than restricting such copying to work for that
        particular customer. The panel concluded that Rimini’s
        activities were not permissible under the terms of the
        licenses Oracle granted to its customers.

        So Rimini must copy software EACH time it provides an approved Oracle patch
        to a licensed Oracle customer, and it can't cache the patches for use on multiple
        licensed customers. (or at least pretend to do so).

        --
        No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
        • (Score: 4, Interesting) by stormreaver on Thursday January 11 2018, @10:17PM

          by stormreaver (5101) on Thursday January 11 2018, @10:17PM (#621140)

          So Rimini must copy software EACH time it provides an approved Oracle patch
          to a licensed Oracle customer, and it can't cache the patches for use on multiple
          licensed customers. (or at least pretend to do so).

          That's one of many reasons my company dropped Oracle and moved to PostgreSQL, which I had been using for many year prior to that. I had actually snuck it into production when nobody was looking, and no one noticed a thing. Then, years later, Management audited our software license usage, which was when I told them about PostgreSQL. Several years after that, Oracle pulled one too many evil stunts, and we booted the whole lot of them.

          It's been database nirvana ever since.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 11 2018, @09:27PM (3 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 11 2018, @09:27PM (#621102)

    If violating a website’s terms of service is not a crime according to federal court, they just legalized hacking into any Internet site?

    • (Score: 2) by frojack on Thursday January 11 2018, @09:47PM (1 child)

      by frojack (1554) Subscriber Badge on Thursday January 11 2018, @09:47PM (#621119) Journal

      Hacking is already against the actual LAW.

      Being a jackass once you visit a website via normal means is not against any actual law.

      --
      No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 12 2018, @06:29PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 12 2018, @06:29PM (#621480)

        This site, if not this author, is certainly filled with excellent examples of the jackass variety of which we speak.

    • (Score: 2) by requerdanos on Friday January 12 2018, @02:30PM

      by requerdanos (5997) Subscriber Badge on Friday January 12 2018, @02:30PM (#621383) Journal

      If violating a website’s terms of service is not a crime according to federal court, they just legalized hacking...?

      No, they just legalized-via-decision the actions necessary to look at a web site (have your client download the files from the open server, render them according to your preferences for viewing, etc.).

      Specifically, they made this activity (also colloquially known as "surfing the freaking web") legal even if a company that runs one of the websites has published some onerous, unenforceable "terms and conditions" somewhere.

      I don't see the relation to hacking.

  • (Score: 1, Informative) by Apparition on Thursday January 11 2018, @11:54PM (1 child)

    by Apparition (6835) Subscriber Badge on Thursday January 11 2018, @11:54PM (#621182) Journal

    This decision shores up the good precedent from 2012 and makes clear—if it wasn't clear already—that violating a corporate computer use policy is not a crime.

    Don't count your chickens before they hatch. [dailycaller.com]

    Eight of out of 10 cases from the 9th Circuit reviewed by the Supreme Court are overruled, according to a 2010 analysis published by the American Bar Association [americanbar.org]. The 9th Circuit, which is known for its liberal tendencies, has the second-highest reversal rate of the 13 appellate courts below the Supreme Court.

    • (Score: 2) by requerdanos on Friday January 12 2018, @02:43PM

      by requerdanos (5997) Subscriber Badge on Friday January 12 2018, @02:43PM (#621386) Journal

      This decision shores up the good precedent from 2012 and makes clear—if it wasn't clear already—that violating a corporate computer use policy is not a crime.

      Don't count your chickens before they hatch.

      Well, violating some parts of a policy isn't a crime, violating other parts may or may not be.

      I maintain a website that publishes results and analysis of lottery drawings, containing the results of every drawing of the "Powerball" and "Mega Millions" lotteries held in the United States, dating back to when they began. New results are available within a few hours of each drawing, sometimes faster than the member state lotteries publish them.

      Quoting from that site's Terms and Conditions [thelotterystation.com]:

      Content Scraping Prohibition: Access to our services is intended for ordinary, interactive use by you. Using a bot or any automated download or copying tool, or efforts to republish our data elsewhere is prohibited. If you would like to re-use our data, please contact [webmaster email].

      Now, it's probably not (necessarily) illegal to use a bot to scrape the site content. (Unless your bot usage effectively constitutes a Denial of Service attack or some such.) This just clears up that that's a no-no and if you do it, you're doing it against the site's terms and don't count on us to go along with it (we might start an arms race to block bots, or what have you.)

      But the prohibition on republishing the site's database of results and analysis without permission is not so clearly legal.

  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by aristarchus on Friday January 12 2018, @01:59AM (3 children)

    by aristarchus (2645) on Friday January 12 2018, @01:59AM (#621227) Journal

    Whew! And here I thought that I might be legally liable for not, according to some, abiding by the submission guidelines for submissions to SoylentNews! But now I see that it is alright to submit things that the editors don't like, things like fair and balanced stories, news for nerds, and counter-fascist propaganda. So, Hey!! Eds!!! You can select some of my submissions now! It's legal!!!

    --
    #Free{nick}_NOW!!!
    • (Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 12 2018, @04:17AM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 12 2018, @04:17AM (#621253)

      > things like fair and balanced stories

      Red alert! Red alert! aristarchus has turned Fox! I repeat, aristarchus has turned Fox!

      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by aristarchus on Friday January 12 2018, @05:19AM

        by aristarchus (2645) on Friday January 12 2018, @05:19AM (#621269) Journal

        Not turned, has always been! Surely you have read Aesop's tales? Of course, more of the coyote in North America. Or B'rer Bugs Bunny. Are you suggesting that Fox News has been pulling our leg the whole time? And that now the Trumpster and the Faux News are in a death spiral of tautological self-confirmation, which can only end, as it does with the Gooney Bird (which flies in tighter and tighter circles), with their flying up their own arses? Seems legit! Not saying it was aliens, but, lizard people?

        --
        #Free{nick}_NOW!!!
    • (Score: 2) by requerdanos on Friday January 12 2018, @03:12PM

      by requerdanos (5997) Subscriber Badge on Friday January 12 2018, @03:12PM (#621395) Journal

      things that the editors don't like, things like fair and balanced stories, news for nerds

      Ironically, the quote at the bottom of the page enigmatically reads "The best defense against logic is ignorance."

(1)