3 ms·

> Yes, it's one sided. It's an opinion piece in the comment section, and labelled as such. This is indicated by the breadcrumbs at the top reading "Home / Opini

by YmMot 15y ago

> Yes, it's one sided. It's an opinion piece in the comment section, and labelled as such. This is indicated by the breadcrumbs at the top reading "Home / Opinion / FP Comment". This strikes me as a rather poor excuse (if it's intended as such). I agree nobody should expect an opinion piece to be vigorously researched, cited, etc....but all opinions are not equal. There's a difference between someone who is just casually writing their thoughts with the understanding that they are not fully vetting them...and someone who is clearly biased and pushing a particular agenda. > Wait, they didn't seize his computers because of one particular comment left on his blog by someone unknown? Well, we can't know all their reasons...but based on the facts so far...no they didn't. They seized them because he referred to a possible hacker as "our old friend" and wrote an article/linked to the hacked emails....AND because a potential hacker commented on his blog, possibly leaving evidence in his account/on the server...then refused to cooperate with the investigation. Are they justified doing so? I don't know. I think the "old friend" comment is innocent. I also think based on what we know it's pretty frivolous. Unless they have some clear evidence linking this guy, I think they are overstepping their bounds. Of course they might have it...they're not gonna say. One thing I would also say is that I don't think this guy is being treated any differently than anyone else who gets in the way of any government investigation (that is to say, poorly).... I hope climate change denialists don't hold this up as some sort of proof of their conspiracy theories.

nkurz 15y ago
This strikes me as a rather poor excuse (if it's intended as such). I didn't really intend it to excuse the quality of the content, only to assert that it's allowed to be one-sided. My view (biased, but not self-interested) is that the piece is both well researched and biased, and that the research produced the bias. The author isn't author casually writing scattered thoughts, but rather reiterating the book that she's spent the last year writing. She may be wrong or misleading, but she's spent a lot of effort learning about the subject. Well, we can't know all their reasons...but based on the facts so far...no they didn't. You're right. I'm presuming that Tallbloke was merely an running a blog that allowed comments, rather than a conspirator. I conclude this because there were three blogs being investigated simultaneously, and I find it highly unlikely that all of them are colluding. But I guess we'll have to wait to see how it turns out. If they have inside knowledge not yet released, I'd have to revise my thinking. I hope climate change denialists don't hold this up as some sort of proof of their conspiracy theories. I'm sure some will, but I don't think there's any monolithic set of denialists. On the blogs in question (http://climateaudit.org/ http://climateaudit.org/, http://noconsensus.wordpress.com http://noconsensus.wordpress.com, and http://tallbloke.wordpress.com http://tallbloke.wordpress.com, all more skeptical than denialist), most of the commenters seem to be concentrating on the civil liberties aspect. It's seen as a precursor of the potential downsides of SOPA. There's a lot of libertarian beliefs among the skeptics.

by YmMot 15y ago

nkurz 15y ago

This strikes me as a rather poor excuse (if it's intended as such). I didn't really intend it to excuse the quality of the content, only to assert that it's allowed to be one-sided. My view (biased, but not self-interested) is that the piece is both well researched and biased, and that the research produced the bias. The author isn't author casually writing scattered thoughts, but rather reiterating the book that she's spent the last year writing. She may be wrong or misleading, but she's spent a lot of effort learning about the subject. Well, we can't know all their reasons...but based on the facts so far...no they didn't. You're right. I'm presuming that Tallbloke was merely an running a blog that allowed comments, rather than a conspirator. I conclude this because there were three blogs being investigated simultaneously, and I find it highly unlikely that all of them are colluding. But I guess we'll have to wait to see how it turns out. If they have inside knowledge not yet released, I'd have to revise my thinking. I hope climate change denialists don't hold this up as some sort of proof of their conspiracy theories. I'm sure some will, but I don't think there's any monolithic set of denialists. On the blogs in question (http://climateaudit.org/ http://climateaudit.org/, http://noconsensus.wordpress.com http://noconsensus.wordpress.com, and http://tallbloke.wordpress.com http://tallbloke.wordpress.com, all more skeptical than denialist), most of the commenters seem to be concentrating on the civil liberties aspect. It's seen as a precursor of the potential downsides of SOPA. There's a lot of libertarian beliefs among the skeptics.