"When someone writes a poor program, we celebrate their attempt." No, we don't, at least not when they present their result as 'fact', for asfar as the analogy

"When someone writes a poor program, we celebrate their attempt." No, we don't, at least not when they present their result as 'fact', for asfar as the analogy is holding up. "When someone writes a poor article, we blast them for not having everything just perfect." I'm not doing any such thing. "not having everything just perfect" is skipping over a counterargument, or interpreting an opinion wrong without that having material effect, or something like that. This article is complete and utter bullshit, yet is presented as 'fact' or at least as a 'respectable opinion'. I could write something of the same level about oncology (of which I know absolutely nothing) with an afternoon time and a computer with access to Wikipedia. "Who cares if he made some errors?" Not me, as long as everybody knows about it. However the fact that its getting upvoted here, and the fact that most people hear only what they want to hear when it comes to this whole SOPA circus, is a strong indicator that people are really believing his nonsense. This echo chamber is horrible to watch, and you're right I really don't give a flying fuck, if it weren't for the fact that people form opinions based on stuff like this. Look at it this way: why would you care that Fox 'News' reports on a completely distorted view of reality? Are you saying that that's not damaging either?