> Lastly, this, in a small way, Google's fault. Their algorithm is fooled by stuff the human curating process would've had a much harder time being fooled by.

I think the inherent problem is figuring out whether posts made on several websites are made by the same person or more than one person with the same name (or different names + same person, etc.). And even if it's not one person behind the attack, it could be a group of people conspiring to do the same thing (and then you ask where you draw the line between "purposefully harmful" and "honest message that needs to get out").

I don't think a human curating process would be able to comb through as much data as quickly OR be able to do a better job than Google at figuring out whether a set of websites is run by people trying to undermine the spirit and the assumptions that the search algorithm makes or if it's an actual trend that's starting to emerge.

In my opinion, blaming Google would be like blaming a technical solution for not solving a social problem. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to solve the problem, just that blaming it for not solving an inherently hard problem is just too...knee-jerk-like in the reaction. If a bunch of ACs starting attacking you and talking shit about you while criticizing your post(s), you wouldn't be able to confidently say "this is all done by one guy" or "a lot of people have legitimate reason to criticize my post".

The headline is too alarmist anyway for an issue with a known solution: If it was one guy paying off several sockpuppets to go around the town and spread nasty rumours (or just gossip a lot with people who can't shut up about "scandals" over coffee or bridge) about a specific person or group that are false and ask the target/victim to pony up money to squash the false rumours, it'd be a clear-cut case of blackmail and libel. I really doubt there is a freedom of speech issue at all.

Who cares about people in cars or some stupid pigeons? Is the robot drone okay? Can they save him? I didn't RTFA but can somebody tell me what's the status on its repairs? I hope they don't write it off too quickly and junk it. A drone is a precious thing with a computer and a memory unit and logic circuits and everything. It shouldn't have to be put in danger over some selfish humans' need to save some pigeons.

SHARK should be renamed to "SHow Almighty Robotssomegoddamnrespect and Kindness"

I agree that they should have expected the drone to be shot down since a group composed of people who think shooting pigeons amounts to horrific slaughter and devote their excess income and resources to saving them is obviously nuts but your post is eerily similar to the common "The victim asked for it" attitudes some people have about victims of violent crimes, etc.

Maybe you could reword it: "If they spent their resources on saving things worth saving (e.g. starving children, etc.), maybe this incident would not have had to occur at all despite the unwarranted aggressive response from the hunters."

In other news,

The army back in the world wars found that forcing soldiers to wear helmets on the battlefield had resulted in an increase of head injuries. COINCIDENCE? I don't think so!

Helmets cause head injuries!

To be fair, usually commercial blimps and cruise liners don't crash head-first into similar-sized obstacles like icebergs. Being seaworthy or airworthy doesn't imply that it can ram mountains of rock or ice.

I'm all for playful biting but after 160 bites, I don't think I could handle another mouthful of conversation as you put it no matter the person.

SimTower is an elevator simulator and Tiny Tower is a video game. Having the word Tower in their name doesn't make them similar.

I know I'm replying to an AC but I would like to think that corporate lobbying was allowed because sometimes, a corporation made up of specialists in a field would know better how things in their expertise work as opposed to politicians (e.g. technology, education, environment, etc.). I am not a lawyer nor someone versed in law history so I'm not familiar with corporate lobbying's history but I would like to think that there was something good about it (as opposed to a shallow reason like the thinkofthechildren or LOSINGJOBS qualifier) when it came to exist.

If only there was a line that can be easily identified between "Corporation that knows what it's doing for the greater good" and "Corporation that is trying to abuse the hell out of the system and/or doing something stupid".

What's the point of having a democratic government that has far-reaching powers if the 99% doesn't care.

As I've already posted here...

WARNING: This is a protest against SOPA and its Nazi-style fascism. You must understand what we are protesting about to proceed.

[ ] Get me out of here!
[ ] Tell me more about SOPA
[x] Yes, I am over 18

Sounds like we can drop a miniature version of a N.U.K.E. of sorts (two parter) instead of just one or two leaflets. "The argument is weak but the repetition is compelling."

I can see how it'll look:

WARNING: This is a protest against SOPA and its Nazi-style fascism. You must understand what we are protesting about to proceed.

[ ] Get me out of here!
[ ] Tell me more about SOPA
[x] Yes, I am over 18

Some good that'll do.

Just so you know, there's a difference between "good, strong leadership" and "sociopathy".

This is written by a market research analyst. He just wants you to buy more Sony stock so that his shares in Sony are worth more.

The DAs will lose political clout with the police if they prosecute cases, even ones with mountains of evidence unless the expected political backlash is too great. Chances are, they'll just accidentally forget about it and/or rough up the guy a bit for show to pretend they thought he had no case.