3 ms·
Further evidence (though the Comcast situation is obviously more complex than innocent competition): http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/edq8x/breaking_t
by 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 agoThis 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 agoI 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.