4 ms·
You are correct but it is still sad to see that this irrelevant attack is so popular. How is this comment interesting? It’s not about what Gruber is discussing
by ugh 16y ago
You are correct but it is still sad to see that this irrelevant attack is so popular.
How is this comment interesting? It’s not about what Gruber is discussing, it just attacks and doesn’t even provide evidence for its assumption.
Such comments are not uncommon and I hate them with a passion. A snide, short remark, picking up a popular sentiment without any attempt of providing evidence for the same (“The New York Times has a liberal bias anyway.” – “Fox News is filled with fascists!”) — that’s just spam as far as I’m concerned.
Whether or not services where the user is the product can be valuable for the same is a very interesting question and you could write 1,000 word essays about it — but instead this crap made it all the way to the top.
- lukeschlather 16y agoThe article in question is a snide, short remark. I don't know why anyone would come to this thread expecting reasoned discourse.
- ugh 16y agoI don’t think HN should aspire to have comments of merely equal quality to the source material. Why exactly do you think that subpar articles must automatically lead to bad discussions? That’s far from a given for me. The topic – users as products – is certainly interesting and touches on a whole host of issues that are traditional HN lore, from Google’s business model to startup monetization. As I said, eloquent 1,000 word essays that emphatically disagree with Gruber’s position are certainly possible. Instead there’s spam.