Comment Re:Imagine a world (Score 1) 260
It doesn't matter if it is MS, MS Research, MS Marketing, or even a third party. What I said applies to anyone with an MS bent in their view. That is why what I said was modded up.
And my point is that MS Research is to Microsoft as Stanford University is to railroad tycoons. Danah Boyd doesn't work for "Microsoft", she does academic research for an organization funded by Microsoft. It's technically a division of MS, but it's really not the same thing.
Many of us not only remember the past, but lived through the whole MS "evolution" and can recall many dozens and dozens of examples of MS ruining compatibility, stifling innovation, corrupting standards, destroying competition, lying about FOSS, tampering with regulations, punishing vendors who try to give customers non-MS choices, locking down platforms, buying competing products that were multiplatform and ruining them or simply dropping them, creating unfair licensing agreements, etc, etc, etc.
Indeed. Nobody is arguing any of those points. Not me, not Danah Boyd. Given her focus on social media, I suspect she's in favor of open standards, but that's not really relevant. You're attacking her for working for a largely independent organization that is funded by Microsoft, but her work/career have nothing to do with your complaints.
AT&T sucked. They still do. But the researchers at Bell Labs made incredible contributions to society. Microsoft, Google, Facebook, and others are funding raw research in the hopes of doing the same. What's next, criticizing a gerontologist for taking grants from the same government that invaded Iraq?
And no, I don't have a horse in the game. I despise nearly everything MS has done. But I do respect the notion that real researchers need benefactors, and large corporations should sponsor raw science.
