Now we're talking. Because of private right to action plus one-way attorney fees, the proposition stands to cause a lot of harm. See, it's not that hard to focu

Now we're talking. Because of private right to action plus one-way attorney fees, the proposition stands to cause a lot of harm. See, it's not that hard to focus your argument and take a stand without resorting to hyberbole. The OP on the other hand, well I really tried in my first comment to show the OP's hypocrisy, I am not going to be able to do a better job here. I suppose one measure is, how much did private right to action and one-way attorney fees come up in the HN discussion of the article? Not enough, and never (?) with the kind of historical context you are hereby providing (also missing from the OP). I'd posit that the OP did successfully scare more than 0 readers into considering voting against the proposition. So while the article may not be entirely without social utility (scare pieces have utility!), it's not a "smart" article, and it didn't do a good job of explaining the real critical problems with F. And it successfully made me feel alienated from and judgemental toward the No On F crowd.