3 ms·
You should probably read the snopes article, because nowhere in it does it say that it was a humorous take on the Information Superhighway hoopla. You are spre
by starik36 4mo ago
You should probably read the snopes article, because nowhere in it does it say that it was a humorous take on the Information Superhighway hoopla.
You are spreading lies. Easily checked lies.
- throw0101c 4mo agoThe Snopes article has him saying, about the article, "I was clearly trying to be provocative…". I would interpret that as being humorously contrarian. He actually revisited the 1998 article in a 2023 NYT column: * https://archive.ph/3fidX https://archive.ph/3fidX * https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/04/opinion/internet-economy.html https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/04/opinion/internet-economy.... The productivity numbers show he wasn't as wrong, economically, as folks try to make him out to be, which point (4) goes into. The research on computers and productivity goes back decades: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Productivity_paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Productivity_paradox * https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-solow-productivity-paradox-what-do-computers-do-to-productivity/ https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-solow-productivity-pa...
- myvoiceismypass 4mo agoPlease read up on the concept of "Controversial" or "Hot" takes.