I like Andy but I'm not going to fight to blood for him because if/when he's eliminated, I want them to do a whole bit where he steals Paul's car.

Oh I gotta disagree. It's way better than the "make some random dessert that no one has ever heard of" technicals and people are being judged on some random detail they have no way of knowing. At least here everyone knows what it's supposed to look and taste like.

Also, Bake Off should move to a model where everyone gets at least three rounds and then you bounce multiple contestants on weeks 4, 5, 6. Give them more than 15 minutes of fame!

Yeah, in 2009, that was fair game. I feel a little differently now, but "Google scanned all the books and is making ad money off of them" seemed fine back then.

That really did not matter to me in 2009 (and, I suspect, a lot of copyleft-ish folks back then). We sided with Google in the Google Books case. We sided with YouTube against Viacom. There's nuance in those cases, but a lot of folks in this space were also (still are) saying "copying is not theft".

Eh. I don't know what the edgy Internet is, but I remember the 90s / 00s differently. Can't speak for you but If I told my EFF-loving TechDirt-reading CC0-cheering 2009 self that a startup was being sued for scraping the open web to create a chatbot, I would not have sided with rightholders.

Big "Individual-1" energy here

So, if I were to use newspapers as an analogy, 230 says "can't be sued for op-eds" and Moody (or Tornillo) says "can't pass law mandating op-ed fairness". 3rd Circuit incorrectly assumes these principles to be in conflict. Does that seem like a fair summary?

Curious what your take is on this @mmasnick.bsky.social

I forget. Did they get this mad over Barack Obama's mother?