5 ms·

I had a similar feeling about the recent Cook's Source episode. It's very likely that, in both cases, the charges against the business owner are accurate, and i

I had a similar feeling about the recent Cook's Source episode. It's very likely that, in both cases, the charges against the business owner are accurate, and if so I feel fine about them losing their businesses, if that's the outcome. But how long will it be until some savvy internet user successfully riles people up against an innocent competitor or a personal enemy?

dtf 16y ago
But how long will it be until some savvy internet user successfully riles people up against an innocent competitor or a personal enemy? Remember John Engle vs Stockart? http://blog.iso50.com/5778/save-jon-engle/ http://blog.iso50.com/5778/save-jon-engle/
zacharypinter 16y ago
Further evidence (though the Comcast situation is obviously more complex than innocent competition): http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/edq8x/breaking_the_new_york_times_just_reported_that/ http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/edq8x/breaking_the... > J-Ro is a professional political activist; he's paid to influence online opinion (or has been, on some past issues; no idea whether he's specifically paid on this one), and he's primarily concerned with getting people outraged, not with accuracy in discussion; hence his entirely false claims here.
- jdp23 16y ago
  This seems different on a couple of levels to me. J-Ro's headline was a pretty accurate summary of what the NY Times reported in the context of the overall Net Neutrality debate. And the top-ranked response on Reddit pointed out his agenda and dissented, while on Yelp the two "Elite" posters both criticized the business.
- gabrielroth 16y ago
  I think there's a slight difference between an intrinsically public matter, like the Comcast issue, and a relationship between, say, a business owner and a customer. In political fights, people on all sides make their best case to the public. Sometimes that best case is deceptive or manipulative and that's a problem, but the fact of activists trying to shift public opinion just goes with the territory and long predates the Internet. We're used to it; we have filters for it. The other thing is more complicated. If a business owner rips me off, that's bad. In the past, my only redress was the courts, which is a slow, cumbersome, expensive process. Now there's this new avenue where I can try to make the Internet hate the business owner. This can be a useful corrective, but it's very vulnerable to abuse.
ceejayoz 16y ago
In the Cook's Source episode, though, there was corroborating evidence. The plagiarized article was available in its original form, and other articles in the magazine were shown to be from a variety of media sources. In this case, nothing is verifiable.
- noodle 16y ago
  a lot of corroborating evidence. there were numerous plagiarized articles. i even personally checked out an issue and googled some lines to see where they were taken from. the email in this instance could've been completely faked.
psyklic 16y ago
This already happens all the time in politics. All you have to do is plant a lie in people's heads and some people will believe it forever, despite conclusive evidence to the contrary.

dtf 16y ago

But how long will it be until some savvy internet user successfully riles people up against an innocent competitor or a personal enemy? Remember John Engle vs Stockart? http://blog.iso50.com/5778/save-jon-engle/ http://blog.iso50.com/5778/save-jon-engle/

zacharypinter 16y ago

Further evidence (though the Comcast situation is obviously more complex than innocent competition): http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/edq8x/breaking_the_new_york_times_just_reported_that/ http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/edq8x/breaking_the... > J-Ro is a professional political activist; he's paid to influence online opinion (or has been, on some past issues; no idea whether he's specifically paid on this one), and he's primarily concerned with getting people outraged, not with accuracy in discussion; hence his entirely false claims here.

jdp23 16y ago
This seems different on a couple of levels to me. J-Ro's headline was a pretty accurate summary of what the NY Times reported in the context of the overall Net Neutrality debate. And the top-ranked response on Reddit pointed out his agenda and dissented, while on Yelp the two "Elite" posters both criticized the business.
gabrielroth 16y ago
I think there's a slight difference between an intrinsically public matter, like the Comcast issue, and a relationship between, say, a business owner and a customer. In political fights, people on all sides make their best case to the public. Sometimes that best case is deceptive or manipulative and that's a problem, but the fact of activists trying to shift public opinion just goes with the territory and long predates the Internet. We're used to it; we have filters for it. The other thing is more complicated. If a business owner rips me off, that's bad. In the past, my only redress was the courts, which is a slow, cumbersome, expensive process. Now there's this new avenue where I can try to make the Internet hate the business owner. This can be a useful corrective, but it's very vulnerable to abuse.

ceejayoz 16y ago

In the Cook's Source episode, though, there was corroborating evidence. The plagiarized article was available in its original form, and other articles in the magazine were shown to be from a variety of media sources. In this case, nothing is verifiable.

noodle 16y ago
a lot of corroborating evidence. there were numerous plagiarized articles. i even personally checked out an issue and googled some lines to see where they were taken from. the email in this instance could've been completely faked.

psyklic 16y ago

This already happens all the time in politics. All you have to do is plant a lie in people's heads and some people will believe it forever, despite conclusive evidence to the contrary.