that's not quite accurate.

Yelp uses an automated algorithm to filter out some posts: "How do you decide which reviews to filter? We use filtering software to determine which reviews should be filtered on any given day among the millions that are submitted to the site. The software looks at a wide range of data associated with every review. We invite you to watch this short video for more detail about how it all works." http://www.yelp.com/faq#why_filter

as a site dedicated to enabling ordinary people to post reviews about businesses in their own communities, Yelp provides a great service for consumers. but Yelp also has its own concern to try to keep reviews on its site relevant as much as possible. it doesn't serve anyone to allow users to publish reviews that have little to no connection to the actual businesses being reviewed. Yelp's reputation for being a place where you can get low-noise, high-signal reviews is on the line. and having too much noise as compared to actual signal does not serve Yelp's users either, as they won't get a reasonably accurate picture of businesses reviewed on the site.

i'll acknowledge that Yelp is treading a fine line here. i think they understand that. but to say that Yelp is "undermining consumer rights and freedoms" here is completely unfair and unabashedly silly. filtered posts can still be seen if you click on a link below the reviews. Yelp explains why they have been filtered but still allows users to access said posts.

and even then, if you go to Dietz Development's page now, there are a slew of negative reviews, completely unfiltered, that have nothing to do with Dietz Development's services or customer relations. most of them are backlash "internet badass" posts shaming Dietz for suing. while allowing people to review businesses like Dietz and provide said reviews online for the public is a general good, allowing for higher noise to signal and for reviews that have little to do with the actual quality of a company is not.

there was a Florida pizza restaurant President Obama visited during this year's Presidential campaign. the owner of the restaurant was, apparently, a conservative, but he was excited to host the President all the same and even gave Obama a hug. as a result, hundreds of trolls crashed the restaurant owner's Yelp page and posted negative review after negative review. many of the "reviewers" acknowledged never having eaten at the restaurant. some of the "reviewers" had never been to Florida. would you say Yelp should keep all those "noise" posts anyway? i would argue no. the posts were marginally-relevant, if at all, to the actual pizza restaurant, the quality of service, or the flavor of the pizza pies there.

as for your Slashdot analogy, you completely forget that Slashdot has its own form of "censorship": the moderator system. every user on Slashdot can help moderate posts up or down. the end result is that some posts get buried and others get promoted, for better or for worse. in practical terms, Slashdot also promotes, to some extent, the filtering of posts. considering the trolls and ne'er do wells that frequent /., would you be fine with allowing their posts to appear without some sort of filter?

being in the CIA is about as nerdy as it gets.

clearly your anecdotal, personally-biased evidence is all we need to come to the conclusion that lawyers are jerks. right.

tough having to choose between modding parent as flamebait and replying in argument.

being a lawyer is a noble profession. no one likes lawyers until they realize they are at a point in their lives where they need one. the role of the lawyer overall is to represent their client, zealously and loyally. that's likely the primary reason that the general public dislikes them: they take on the undesirable role of being an advocate for another, and this almost always means that the lawyer will be an adversary to whoever is in opposition to their client.

but here's the thing: at one point or another, every single person will find themselves in need of an advocate to protect and ensure his or her legal rights. that remains true whether the client is a hardworking laborer or even one of the vaunted rich CEOs. in the actual world, the system can be lopsided, with wealthy persons being able to afford high-powered lawyers. nevertheless, there ARE lawyers willing to try to ensure that disparity is mitigated, if not eliminated.

the parent post tries to paint all lawyers as people who have chosen to do evil. there couldn't be anything farther from the truth. if anything, the majority of lawyers are in the very business of making the world a better place, by defending the common person or the outcast when no one else will. lawyers make sure their clients know and understand the law. most importantly, lawyers make sure that people know and do not lose their rights. that is one of the most fundamentally HELPFUL things a person can do, especially in nations founded on the rule of law.

parent post ignores the scores and scores of attorneys who choose to work pro bono or for non-profits or public interest firms. it just happens to be that the most visible lawyers are the loud and controversial ones. they are just that, loud and controversial, and give the less visible attorneys a bad name.

speak for yourself.

the injunction against the Galaxy is precisely that: an injunction. the underlying patent case has not yet been decided before the court. approving the injunction means that the suing party has, at first glance, met their evidentiary burden to move forward with the case. but the case itself still must be decided, and such cases can take up to a year or more to work themselves out. meanwhile, Apple can enjoy the "fruits" of reduced competition. don't kid yourself: that doesn't benefit anyone but Apple.

and with how specious software patents can be, we should ALL be wary of lawsuits whose primary effect is to stifle competitors not in the market, but out of it. doesn't matter if it's Apple, Samsung, Google, or any other party; this sort of lawsuit stinks any way you look at it.

this is not a win for Apple. this is not a win for Samsung/Google. worst of all, though, this is not a win for the consumer.

how is the above post flamebait? it's the truth: sexism pervades scientific fields, just as it does nursing and teaching. these fields are societally seen as acceptable only for specific genders. we should be hiring based on whoever is best for the job. that's not what's happening in real life. in real life, society constantly tells us that women are not accepted in science, and that men are not accepted in nursing or teaching.

you might be right in one sense: Obama really should not be claiming credit for dropping gas prices.

that being said, he can't really be blamed for their insane increase, either. we have Egypt, Israel, Syria, Iran, Saudia Arabia, gas price speculators, BP, and a whole slew of other bad actors to blame for that

so was George Bush.

the policy for putting away devices during take-off and landing is a sound one, for safety alone. take-off and landing are the most hazardous times during a flight. having small, solid, dense objects like cell phones, tablets, e-readers, game devices and the like unsecured during take-off or landing is just inviting trouble. for those times, it's probably better to avoid people being hit by the errant portable electronic device instead of allowing the "convenience" of their use.

and exactly what data do you have showing 1) that these groups are the same and 2) that people "claim that pirating movies isn't stealing"?

quit it with the troll bait.

what's really problematic is not whether there are legit uses for the data, but that the app developers aren't up front about data being shared at all.

no, no it would NOT be cool if scorpions could fly D:

err, you missed the part where i said Dems are no better. this country sorely needs third parties.

what? you mean the party that supports full on law enforcement against marijuana? or the party that wants to institute christian religion into science classes? or the party that wants to change the tax code so that the filthy wealthy consolidate power and influence?

i'm not claiming the Ds to be any better (because they're not), but you claiming to be a libertarian and then declaring your support for the GOP, who are anything but libertarian these days, is absurd.

as trite as it sounds, "i was just following the rules" and "i was just following orders" have often been lame excuses covering up horrible abuses against humanity. actively enabling the stifling of free speech is a horrible abuse.

i recognize the issue is much more complex than that, but then, so should you.

charging piracy for this is incredibly problematic, though. if the model is basically "we pay if your file is popular", but there is no checking of the actual file, whether the user has actual rights to the file or not, or encouragement of piracy specifically, all that's left is accusing MegaUpload of encouraging popular files.

last i checked, not only is it NOT illegal to pay for popular things, it's ALSO one of the fundamental principles behind the "free market".

this whole thing is troubling. especially since services like MegaUpload CAN serve as alternative distribution channels out of the control of old media. if old media can get these services shut down, it's not because of any criminality: it's because they're trying to eliminate competing business models.