Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

It Will Soon Be Illegal To Punish US Customers Who Criticize Businesses Online (arstechnica.com)

Posted by EditorDavid on from the facing-the-feedback dept.

An anonymous reader writes: Congress has passed a law protecting the right of U.S. consumers to post negative online reviews without fear of retaliation from companies. The bipartisan Consumer Review Fairness Act was passed by unanimous consent in the US Senate, a Senate Commerce Committee announcement said. The bill, introduced in 2014, was already approved by the House of Representatives and now awaits President Obama's signature.

The Consumer Review Fairness Act -- full text available here -- voids any provision in a form contract that prohibits or restricts customers from posting reviews about the goods, services, or conduct of the company providing the product or service. It also voids provisions that impose penalties or fees on customers for posting online reviews as well as those that require customers to give up the intellectual property rights related to such reviews.

90 comments

  1. The editors here do by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    excellent work. Five stars!

    1. Re:The editors here do by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Different editor, and probably different submitter of the story, so dupes happens.

      The case that it was a dupe is also caused by people up-voting the submission. Do it yourself here: https://slashdot.org/recent/

  2. Re:We'll see how long this lasts... by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What do you accomplish by trying to inject Trump into this topic?

    Really, what do you accomplish?

  3. Worst social media site EVER! by gurps_npc · · Score: 1, Troll

    Look, the only reason I have been posting on Slashdot is that the threatened to sue me if I told the truth. Their posts are made of the parts of pigs that butchers throw away. The force their threaders to work 16 hour days, with no overtime, for only $5 a day. Their vowels are purchased from east Asian pirates, who when they are not stealing them, are kidnapping small dogs and harvesting all the vowels from their organs.

    God that feels good to get off my chest.

    --
    excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
    1. Re:Worst social media site EVER! by Jiro · · Score: 1

      You're obviously lying or have an agenda. East Asian languages are not written with Western letters, which leads to a surplus of unused vowels. The low price of East Asian vowels is a corollary of this cultural difference, and attributing this to vowel piracy is racist.

    2. Re: Worst social media site EVER! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Vietnamese

    3. Re: Worst social media site EVER! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But Slashdot provides a safe space, and a soft teddy bear cuddling room for all of their employees. So it doesn't matter if they're working in some Third World hellhole sweat shop, and being paid two cents for every comment they post. The safe space and cuddle room turn every sad face into a smiley one

  4. Butthurt much? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yea, silly question. Obviously yours is hurting big time.

  5. Re:We'll see how long this lasts... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Good point about Trump. I just checked, and I've left 435 Yelp reviews. Probably 350 (as a wild guess) of them have been very negative. I'm terrified that Trump will make it easier for those corporations to sue me.

  6. Why is this here? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This was already posted a couple of days ago, why is it being posted again?

    1. Re:Why is this here? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are less typos and grammatical errors in this post than in most, so I guess they figured to get some extra mileage out of it by posting it again.

      I actually think there are less dupes recently, maybe that's why the ones that do occur stand out more. Give them a break.

  7. Same Repost Title and All by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seriously, how lazy is crap dot becoming these days. The only difference is this time there is a break in the middle of the topic.

    https://yro.slashdot.org/story/16/11/29/2127237/it-will-soon-be-illegal-to-punish-customers-who-criticize-businesses-online

  8. Re:We'll see how long this lasts... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You clearly don't understand what unanimous means.

  9. What's this? by Black+Parrot · · Score: 2

    Congress looking out for people rather than companies???

    Fetch the smelling sauce!

    --
    Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    1. Re:What's this? by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

      Congress looking out for people rather than companies???

      This doesn't collectively hurt companies. Bad reviews just shift revenue from one company to another. A fairer review process will likely help big corps, because they will face less pricing pressure from shoddy low-quality upstarts. There was no organized corporate resistance to this law.

    2. Re: What's this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Smelling _Sauce_? Is this a clever cultural reference I am too English to recognise, or do you mean "salts"?

    3. Re:What's this? by rtb61 · · Score: 0

      It was already illegal. Technically speaking as freedom of speech is a constitutional requirement and no law shall be enacted that infringes it, contract law is then covered. You can not write a contract, that infringes freedom of speech as that would invalidate contract law itself. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof", so technically you can not write contract law, that would enable private individuals via contracts to infringe freedom of speech of others. So the common lie, private industry can censor speech whilst government can not is a lie.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    4. Re:What's this? by Sique · · Score: 1

      Not necessarily. The potential customer could become wary and think twice if he should be shopping around, if the first company he was looking for got a lot of bad reviews. He might just skip the purchase and keep the money. It's not as if every purchase you do is out of necessity.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    5. Re:What's this? by EvilSS · · Score: 1

      Congress looking out for people rather than companies???

      Fetch the smelling sauce!

      Most of the companies doing this were small companies, so they amounted to little in the way of campaign donations.

      --
      I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
    6. Re:What's this? by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      That doesn't collectively hurt companies, since he will still spend his money on something else.

    7. Re:What's this? by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      technically you can not write contract law, that would enable private individuals via contracts to infringe freedom of speech of others.

      That must be why I've never heard of non-disclosures or commercial confidentiality.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    8. Re:What's this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... of non-disclosures or commercial confidentiality.

      When the buyer (employer) owns or has invested in certain truths, they can rightly demand the seller (employee) protect them.

      When the buyer (individual) wants to expose certain truths or feelings, the seller (company) has no contractual power to stop them. Buyers are being censored because they don't have the resources to fight the seller.

    9. Re:What's this? by Sique · · Score: 2

      Even that's not for sure. He might just keep the money and reduce his debt, thus it even hurts banks not getting interest.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    10. Re:What's this? by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      I swear there used to be a goalpost right here.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  10. This has a BFL (Big F'n Loophole)! by RhettLivingston · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Near the end it states:

    "A [contract form] provision shall not be considered void under this bill to the extent that it prohibits disclosure or submission of, or reserves the right of a person or business that hosts online consumer reviews or comments to remove, certain: [...] (3) law enforcement records;

    Since everything on the internet is now a de-facto "law enforcement record", it follows that a contract provision is not void if it prohibits any disclosures on the internet. Right? :D

    1. Re:This has a BFL (Big F'n Loophole)! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... not void if it prohibits ...

      By "law enforcement records", I think they mean any narrative or history of police actions: You bitching your sex doll doesn't work, cannot be censored or cause for punishment.

    2. Re:This has a BFL (Big F'n Loophole)! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Since everything on the internet is now a de-facto "law enforcement record",

      That's one great leap of logic there.

  11. Re:We'll see how long this lasts... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    He is like the kid who always threatened to tell the teacher or his mom about everything. In fact, almost all of Trump's behavior has direct parallels in grade school behavior. Even the things he says. It's uncanny.

  12. Re:We'll see how long this lasts... by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 5, Funny

    Yeah, I can totally see that. I mean, obviously the whole bipartisan "unanimous vote" was just a sham, designed to dupe unsuspecting America into complacency until they can get Trump in office and then... (dun, dun, duuuuun!) reverse the law they just passed.

    Pure evil. So damned diabolical. I'll bet Trump planned the entire thing. In fact, His Orangeness will probably just delete the law from history with an executive order, just to rub it in everyone's face that he's now gained absolute power over all life and space-time. Somebody needs to stop this maniac!

    --
    Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
  13. My head asplode by Hognoxious · · Score: 0

    Yay! Freedom for the win!

    Hang on, it's anti-business. Goddam cormanusts!

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  14. anotherr editor fail by frovingslosh · · Score: 1

    But when will it be illegal for editors to re-post the same stories over and over on Slashdot? I'm not even a paid editor who's job it should be in part to at least keep up with what has already been posted, but I've spotted several stories today that are re-posts of things seen here in recent days. It just isn't that hard to review just the headlines of the stories when you check in to Slashdot going back to the last time you checked in. If simple (and simple minded) readers can spot the dups then someone being compensated as an editor should reasonably be expected to do the same.

    --
    I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
    1. Re:anotherr editor fail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have to feel bad for Timothy, who was evidently forced to train his replacements as a condition of keeping his job a few extra months.

  15. Re:We'll see how long this lasts... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    He gets to whine. For leftists whining is as essential as food and shelter, if not more so.

  16. Re:We'll see how long this lasts... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Except it's now your post that's drawing attention. Parent Score 0 Troll, You Score 2

  17. My rights as a business? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Why are liberals interfering with its my rights as a business? Who is the government to deny me the ability to retaliate against negative posters?

    1. Re:My rights as a business? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Corporations are people too!

  18. Oracle benchmarks by ortholattice · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The Oracle EULA (2012) includes the clause: "Publication Prohibition. You shall not publish any results of benchmark tests run on the SOFTWARE."

    I wonder if this new law means we will start seeing them.

    1. Re:Oracle benchmarks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The new law would seem to disallow provisions such as that one, although Oracle would undoubtedly challenge it in court. It's not clear whether it applies retroactively to contracts already agreed to.

      I'm surprised Oracle didn't get Sen. Feinstein to insist on adding an exception for computer software benchmarks (there already is an exception for commercial product photos).

    2. Re:Oracle benchmarks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Wasn't that copied from the Microsoft benchmark restrictions?

      It is there too: "13. BENCHMARK TESTING.

      a Server Software. You must obtain Microsoft’s prior written approval to disclose to a third party the results of any benchmark test of server software or additional software that comes with it."

    3. Re:Oracle benchmarks by mysidia · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The Oracle EULA (2012) includes the clause: "Publication Prohibition. You shall not publish any results of benchmark tests run on the SOFTWARE."

      Under the act, Oracle might argue that results of standard benchmark tests against their product reveal trade secrets.

      They might also argue the act does not apply, because the contract is negotiated between a Business and Oracle, not a form contract between an indivudal and Oracle. (This may mean that Oracle chooses to stop offering their products to individuals, and simply requires employees to sign NDAs instead of using form EULAs.)

      A "form contract" is a contract with standardized terms: (1) used by a person in the course of selling or leasing the person's goods or services, and (2) imposed on an individual without a meaningful opportunity to negotiate the standardized terms. The definition excludes an employer-employee or independent contractor contract.

      The standards under which provisions of a form contract are considered void under this bill shall not be construed to affect:

      legal duties of confidentiality;
      civil actions for defamation, libel, or slander; or
      a party's right to establish terms and conditions for the creation of photographs or video of such party's property when those photographs or video are created by an employee or independent contractor of a commercial entity and are solely intended to be used for commercial purposes by that entity.
      Such standards also shall not be construed to affect any party's right to remove or refuse to display publicly on an Internet website or webpage owned, operated, or controlled by such party content that: (1) contains the personal information or likeness of another person or is libelous, harassing, abusive, obscene, vulgar, sexually explicit, inappropriate with respect to race, gender, sexuality, ethnicity, or other intrinsic characteristic; (2) is unrelated to the goods or services offered by or available at such party's website; or (3) is clearly false or misleading.

      A provision shall not be considered void under this bill to the extent that it prohibits disclosure or submission of, or reserves the right of a person or business that hosts online consumer reviews or comments to remove, certain: (1) trade secrets or commercial or financial information; (2) personnel and medical files; (3) law enforcement records; (4) content that is unlawful or that a party has a right to remove or refuse to display; or (5) computer viruses or other potentially damaging computer code, processes, applications, or files.

      A person is prohibited from offering form contracts containing a provision that is considered void under this bill.

      Enforcement authority is provided to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and states.

      The FTC must provide businesses with nonbinding best practices for compliance.

      Nothing in this bill shall be construed to limit, impair, or supersede the Federal Trade Commission Act or any other federal law.

    4. Re:Oracle benchmarks by mysidia · · Score: 2

      It's not clear whether it applies retroactively to contracts already agreed to.

      It is not possible for Congress to make a law affecting contracts already agreed to.
      Many years ago congress tried to pass a law that would have the affect of voiding some existing contracts, and
      the attempt was found to be unconstitutional.

      That's because it would be considered an ex post facto law

      And one of the lines in the US Constitution reads:

      "No bill of attainder or ex post facto law shall be passed"

      Bill of Attainder --- A legislative act that singles out an individual or group for punishment
      ex post facto law -- A law that makes illegal an act that was legal when committed

    5. Re:Oracle benchmarks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      But the bill can make such clauses in those contracts void.

    6. Re:Oracle benchmarks by johannesg · · Score: 1

      That one has always surprised me. You'd think a database vendor would be proud to show of the results of its flagship product. That prohibition suggests, to me, that they have something to hide.

      Hey, since we're here, here is a little benchmark I ran on the Oracle systems. In the 3-4 years we ran on top of Oracle, we had a database corruption twice. We needed (and received) help from Oracle support to recover from both corruptions. In the 15 or so years we ran on top of PostgreSQL since then, we had zero database corruptions. If one were to occur we are not sure we can get help, but we believe our data recovery procedures are good enough that it won't matter anyway.

      And yes, we test that on a regular basis. Thanks for asking.

    7. Re:Oracle benchmarks by johannesg · · Score: 2

      How can lousy performance possibly be a trade secret?

    8. Re:Oracle benchmarks by sjames · · Score: 2

      It wouldn't make the clause illegal in the sense that there would be no penalty for the party that put it in the contract. It would simply be unenforceable.

      Arguably, it already is, this law just clarifies that and allows a judicial shortcut to the correct decision.

    9. Re:Oracle benchmarks by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      You are correct to a degree. But this wouldn't be an ex post facto law. It would be the same as a no smoking in a public building law. It just means that actions that was once legal (smoking at the courthouse) is now not legal. So existing contracts would just become unenforceable in respect to the law after the law takes effect but nothing makes the provisions before the law takes effect illegal or punishable. This is further complicated with Calder v. Bull which sort of takes the line that only criminal laws can be ex post facto. So unless this law provides criminal punishment, the courts would likely ignore any ex post facto claims.

      Now if the law says anyone who had one of these contracts before the law takes effect will be fined or imprisoned or otherwise punished, the ex post facto clause certainly would become valid. But a new law just means you have to change your behavior from the date it takes effect.

      Interestingly, we have seen this ex post facto law situation with interest rates in which congress changed the rates for the Stafford student loan program to rates lower than contracted rates for a period of time from July 1 to to august 9th of 2013. H.R.1911 actually has language in it saying that it takes effect as if it was passed on July 1st 2013 even though it was signed into law a over a month later. Yet nobody challenged it.

    10. Re:Oracle benchmarks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's only valid if the EULA is valid, which means that in many countries it's a null agreement.

    11. Re:Oracle benchmarks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a good thing. We don't want ANYONE replicating their software.

    12. Re:Oracle benchmarks by mysidia · · Score: 1

      How can lousy performance possibly be a trade secret?

      If kept sufficiently secret, it can reduce the damage which competitors' engineering and marketing departments might be able to use
      secrets derived from benchmarking data to inflict by designing scenarios for demonstration purposes and related pamphlets
      which show how faster product X is than Oracle.

      Because competitors' engineering departments won't know where X DB is weakest and also what performance aspects X DB's vendor prioritizes for customers.

  19. Re: We'll see how long this lasts... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Keyword ranking

  20. Re:another editor fail by frovingslosh · · Score: 1

    I see no evidence that the new editors were trained at all. Neither in the selection of new stories nor in the basic proof reading of the summaries. If Tim taught the new staff anything it was what they could get away with. How did I miss out on the job of being a Slashdot editor? I've always wanted a job that involved no physical labor and no mental labor and no oversight of performance.

    --
    I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
  21. Re:We'll see how long this lasts... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Holy shit you are whiny...you're the whiniest person I've ever seen on Slashdot!

  22. Re:We'll see how long this lasts... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Truth told, nerve touched. This is how reality works, college (poisoned) graduate!

  23. Re:We'll see how long this lasts... by CrashPoint · · Score: 0

    or should I say a Soros loser instead?

    Only if your actual intended message is "I'm a gullible idiot who thinks everyone who disagrees with me is part of a sinister conspiracy".

  24. I wonder if Trump's gonna repeal it by rsilvergun · · Score: 2

    I almost think this is a trap (along with that new law putting E85 into cars). It's a damned if you do/damned if you don't. On the one hand it's exactly the kind of law Trump opposes (he wants to expand liable law and make a more UK-like system over here) but OTOH it's a very popular law with billions of dollars behind it (Yelp, Google, Uber, Amazon. Basically any web based company that deals in information).

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:I wonder if Trump's gonna repeal it by bruce_the_loon · · Score: 2

      Considering the unanimous passing in the Senate, he'd have to do it by executive order as he'd need a majority in the House and the Senate to pass a repeal bill otherwise. Even then there's enough support around for Congress to pass it again and override a veto attempt.

      --
      Trying to become famous by taking photos. Visit my homepage please.
    2. Re:I wonder if Trump's gonna repeal it by Hognoxious · · Score: 2

      he wants to expand liable law

      libel

      and make a more UK-like system over here

      Which aspects of that imagined system would those be?

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    3. Re:I wonder if Trump's gonna repeal it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      May I suggest you go back and study your civics material?
      Executive order and law approved by Congress and signed by the President are different!

      Trump indicated he will rescind executive orders, which does NOT require Congress permission, because Congress never voted for it.
      Trump WANTS congress to make laws, which a President can NOT change.

    4. Re:I wonder if Trump's gonna repeal it by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Which aspects of that imagined system would those be?

      That Truth is not an absolute defense in the UK. In the US, the Truth is not an absolute defense, but the Americans wish to pretend it is.

      As for "imagined system" are you trying to imply that UK has no liable laws? Otherwise why would their system be imagined?

      --
      Learn to love Alaska
    5. Re:I wonder if Trump's gonna repeal it by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      As for "imagined system" are you trying to imply that UK has no liable laws?

      Scotland has a separate legal system to England and Wales. Thus UK libel (not liable) law exists as much as Michigario's does.

      Not knowing that is pretty much proof that you aren't exactly an expert in the subject.

      That Truth is not an absolute defense in the UK.

      Why do people keep repeating this? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      Do they teach you lot in highschool that you're always right? Or only when you get to DeVry? A simple Google search would have saved you making a fool of yourself.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    6. Re:I wonder if Trump's gonna repeal it by AK+Marc · · Score: 1
      So you are not disputing the fact that the truth is not an absolute defense in the US? And your cite is to a recently changed law, and, of course, being common law, the law is unrelated to the application of the law, and I don't pretend to be able to keep up with case law in all locations which use common law.

      Scotland has a separate legal system to England and Wales. Not knowing that is pretty much proof that you aren't exactly an expert in the subject.

      I did know that. I didn't make a big deal of it because it was irrelevant to the point at hand.

      Why do people keep repeating this?

      Because it's been repeated many times, and there have been some cases covered internationally where the application of law made it look like the truth wasn't a defense. http://boingboing.net/2011/03/... Sites covering the recent law change you linked to indicate the previous law wasn't as absolute as to regards to the truth.

      When the law was "bad" for hundreds of years, a law change a few years ago won't modify everyone's perceptions overnight. Why are you so aggressive and angry about it?

      --
      Learn to love Alaska
  25. I find it hard to imagine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It ever was not.

  26. "Corporations" is "Soylent Green"... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    "Corporations" is "Soylent Green", I mean "People". Didn't you get the memo?

  27. Re:another editor fail by epine · · Score: 1

    I've always wanted a job that involved no physical labor and no mental labor and no oversight of performance.

    Too bad others felt the same way, as we're getting exactly that. I've never wanted such a job. The job I've always wanted is the one where I'm in flow for six hours at a stretch (at least once per day), there are more feedback loops than you can shake a stick at, mainly anchored in equally competent peers who likewise wouldn't have it any other way.

    NASA, during the Apollo program, had many pockets of competence where The Right Stuff stretched as far as the eye could see.

    9 Project Management Lessons Learned from the Apollo 11 Moon Landing

    Delegating to people who don't have experience with a certain task may seem counterintuitive, but it was something Apollo project managers actively encouraged — in fact, the average age of the entire Operations team was just 26, most fresh out of college. NASA gave someone a problem and the freedom to run with it, and the results speak for themselves.

    Yes, parts of NASA on the ground basically looked like this.

    Imagine the caliber of people you need to hire by default to make this strategy viable.

    Gerald Weinberg's second rule of acquisition:

            (2) No matter how it looks at first, it's always a people problem.

    Moral of the story: hire only those who dream for the stars, the kind of stars where Easy Street has no name.

  28. Re:We'll see how long this lasts... by meerling · · Score: 1

    And i guess you've never seen a politician flip flop before

  29. taaagg by taaagg · · Score: 0

    Taj 0551844053 for wiring conduits and pest control we will be able to reach Mantmanah with ease, we the best choice you can order you to live in a clean house and free from disease http://www.taaagg.com/ Among the many existing companies will find the crown of the company is only able to accomplish your business Strictly With us we will say goodbye to the old cleaning operations wearisome costing big money And goodbye to stains and dirt that are in the walls, floors and goodbye to many annoying insects of all types and the various And goodbye to clogged sewage and water leakage inside the house, we say goodbye to you all these old stuff And Welcome to the crown corporation with development and modern technology http://www.taaagg.com/

  30. Re:We'll see how long this lasts... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    I know you are a cunt

    Cunt.

  31. Funny, but... by gatfirls · · Score: 1

    Trump is the epitome of a thin skinned person. I can see this being a "yuge" issue for him as he absolutely despises criticism in any shape or form, and for businesses? Forget about it.

    And yes we all know he can't 'pen away' laws but he can talk and there's ~1/2 a country that listens to his idiocy and thinks it's viable. The pulpit he speaks from went from "guy talking shit" to "commander in chief" so there will be movement behind his ideas.

    Do you not think a president Trump won't call out and deride dissenters?

    1. Re:Funny, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trump is the epitome of a thin skinned person.

      No.

    2. Re:Funny, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trump is the epitome of a thin skinned person.

      No.

      That was a fairly comprehensive rebuttal. I have to admit you have him cornered there.

    3. Re:Funny, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He didn't need a comprehensive rebuttal, the poster he replied to provided no evidence of Trump being a thin-skinned person. Perhaps Trump is just a masterful counter-troll?

  32. Re:We'll see how long this lasts... by damn_registrars · · Score: 1

    Trump is now the leader of the republican party (as happens when one is elected POTUS as the candidate of the party). He also is the most successful troll in the history of trolling. Anyone in Washington who disagrees with him - regardless of their party affiliation - will be openly shamed and abused by the Troll in Chief. When he tells the GOP to jump they will ask only how high. When he says in January that he wants this bill killed they will ask only how quickly.

    Being as this type of bill potentially challenges his god-given right to make money, he will want it killed. Just as he wants "new libel laws" that allow him to throw journalists into prison who cover him in unfavorable ways.

    --
    Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
  33. Re:We'll see how long this lasts... by sumdumass · · Score: 2

    It doesn't matter what score or moderation the parent is. I as everyone should, surf slashdot at -1 and give bonuses to troll and other down mods specifically because people with agendas will use the moderation system to hide dissent.

    So to a regular logged in user, your point is largely lost unless that user is only looking for an echo chamber to agree with themselves. Otherwise, they would have modified their levels also and view low scoring post.

  34. Re:We'll see how long this lasts... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Considering the Trump and Republican stance on Net Neutrality it's a valid question.

  35. TRIGGERED! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sorry you got so offended by his comment, do you need a safe space to hide from criticism against Trump? Should I call the PC police?

  36. Re:We'll see how long this lasts... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You must be new here!

  37. Alien shooter in world in 2016 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Alien shooter in world in 2016
    This is an ENHANCED adaptation of the Legendary PC Alien Shooter amusement which is presently accessible on your Android gadget! Left military complex. Crowd...
    youtube.com

  38. Re: We'll see how long this lasts... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Must be a Space Nutter.

  39. Re:We'll see how long this lasts... by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

    For a government to be effective, the electorate must be vigilant.

    And since when is verboten to discuss the president-elect in regards to legislation? This "no talking" policy I see many pushing seems new and Trump-special. Why?

    --
    Learn to love Alaska
  40. Bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There is only one reason that congress passed it now. Because they know Obama will not sign it. They want this dead before Trump could get in office and make it a reality.

  41. Re: We'll see how long this lasts... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    so is it legal now then?

  42. Re:We'll see how long this lasts... by DiEx-15 · · Score: 1

    What do you accomplish by trying to inject Trump into this topic?

    Really, what do you accomplish?

    I got better things to do than read the comment from the troll you replied to...

    ...but they succeeded in what they wanted to accomplish because you broke Rules of the Internet #14.

  43. Re:We'll see how long this lasts... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    because Trump is a thin skinned whiner? Look at his reaction to Alec Baldwin's (hilarious) portrayal on Saturday Night Live.

  44. Re:We'll see how long this lasts... by ilsaloving · · Score: 1

    I could see this being a bill that Trump would want his friends in the house and senate to quickly get to work on writing out of existence. They will probably have lawyers preparing a case to bring to trial soon in hopes of getting a court to overturn it.

    Why is this modded troll? This was exactly the first thing I thought of too. Trump has repeatedly and rabidly stated how he will persecute anyone that says bad things about him. The first amendment is already going to give him a lot of trouble in that regard.

    This kind of legislation will just introduce another barrier for him, and therefore logically, he will want to get rid of it.

  45. Re:We'll see how long this lasts... by damn_registrars · · Score: 1

    I could see this being a bill that Trump would want his friends in the house and senate to quickly get to work on writing out of existence. They will probably have lawyers preparing a case to bring to trial soon in hopes of getting a court to overturn it.

    Why is this modded troll? This was exactly the first thing I thought of too. Trump has repeatedly and rabidly stated how he will persecute anyone that says bad things about him. The first amendment is already going to give him a lot of trouble in that regard.

    Are you that new here? Slashdot has had a decidedly conservative majority voice for many years now. I was moderated troll for daring to suggest that Trump is not the greatest leader since the dawn of man kind (minus St. Ronnie, of course).

    Trump will work hard at reducing the constitution to something will less value than used toilet paper. Meanwhile the slashdot conservatives will soon champion what a great idea that is.

    --
    Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.