I find this comment amusing, because a recurring theme in the article is that of concern over the way many automated systems mine the past looking for discontin

I find this comment amusing, because a recurring theme in the article is that of concern over the way many automated systems mine the past looking for discontinuities in politicians, criminals and "potential criminals" - that this does not allow growth or change of a person. In politics particularly I agree that this is dangerous - I want my politicians to be human - for it to be acceptable for them to change their opinions as their understanding changes, and as society changes around them. A strong requirement on rigidity and consistency of position is, to me, just as bad as a politician who has no opinion other than what the polls say that day. Rather than either I like a carefully considered opinion and position that acknowledges new data, and changes if necessary upon understanding said new data. Further, I don't mind if my politicians make mistakes, sometimes say stupid things, and occasionally show their human foibles - I think its awful to hold them to superhuman standards as we see a lot these days. To address the last point: I know nothing inherent to the internet that requires a strongly consistent piece and prevents open discussion about a topic. Heck - there's nothing inherent about the internet that requires it to be a debate. I've found debate tends to arise from proclamations of "this is the truth" rather than "here's what I'm thinking" anyway - internet or no. The latter tends to just lead to discussion but unfortunately also draws people who try to discredit the author on inconsistencies because they mistake a "my thinking right now" piece for a proclamation of truth. I don't think this is built into the internet, so much as a broader social issue or quirk of human psychology that causes or at least allows for that mistake. I lean towards a social issue of some sort that causes us to think everything people write is a proclamation of truths rather than a fundamental human thing - and that there is some psychological quirk that once someone is attacking a mistaken proclamation of truth it causes people to have to defend their team, rather than ignore the incorrect premise. I'll admit it, I've done both before - but I'm not sure it was the right thing to do.