Came here to say this. The mystery was "solved" years ago when it was proven that it didn't exist in the first place.

I appreciate that it doesn't benefit the makers of what I'm assuming is going to be a cheesy, "Ancient Aliens" level documentary made for bloody Channel 5 for this to be the case, but I'd at least expect better from Slashdot than to waste time promoting this fluff.

And others are free to criticise them as they please. Whether or not they want to run their own social media website.

I wouldn't be as confident as you are if it came to court. Even if there's some BS covering this in the small print of the terms and conditions, putting words in someone's mouth without it being obvious this has been done sounds legally dubious to me.

Yes, they can. And others are free to criticise them for this. Whether or not they want to run their own social media website.

This whole post is virtually the same logic hauled out by fanboys of big companies when they're criticised. No, the fact that someone isn't pointing a gun at my head forcing me to buy (e.g.) the latest iPhone doesn't negate my right to criticise it. Or require me to design and build my own iPhone.

Logically, this would preclude criticism of the vast majority of things and remove the critical/review information that a truly free market depends upon.

'Course, the irony with such fuckwits is that they act like they're defending free markets, when in fact they're attacking a core part of their functioning.

Fair point, but the general principle still applies, and it should be noted that it was Betteridge himself that referred to journalists ("The reason why journalists use that style of headline is that they know the story is probably bullshit"). (I note that the original quote- now corrected in the Wikipedia article- says "bullshit", not "bollocks" too).

On reflection, I don't think I made it as clear as intended that everything after the first line is a cut-and-paste of the same six-year-old comment that I linked to.

So, no, it's not the latest fad now, even if it was six years ago. And yet, as I said, I'm surprised that would-be smartasses are *still* managing to get it wrong.

"Carob works on the principle that, when mixed with the right combination of fats and sugar, it can duplicate chocolate in color and texture. Of course, the same can be said of dirt." - Sandra Boynton

(I commented on this six years ago, yet people like you are still yelping "Betteridge's!" at every question-phrased headline without getting it:-)

"No, [Betteridge's law doesn't apply here]. This is an actual, legitimate question.

As I correctly predicted [earlier that same year], lots of Slashdotters have seized upon Betteridge as the latest fad kneejerk response, and are misapplying it without understanding what it means. In his own words, Betteridge's Law applies to cases where journalists "know the story is probably bollocks, and don’t actually have the sources and facts to back it up, but still want to run it."

For example, without the evidence to back it up, a headline saying "Tomato ketchup caused AIDS that led to exitinction of dinosaurs" would be obvious crap and lead to criticism of the paper and/or journalist. OTOH, "Did Tomato ketchup cause AIDS that led to the extinction of the dinosaurs?" gives them the weasellish get-out of "Well, we didn't actually *claim* that it did".

Even then, if a question headline was a genuine attempt to present a plausibly-supported but not universally-accepted idea (possibly because it was new and/or divisive), then Betteridge's wouldn't apply.

In short, Betteridge's original observation was insightful where he claimed it applied, but it was never a blanket dismissal of question headlines, so please stop the tedious, kneejerk misapplication."

Better hope you've got nothing you could *ever* be blackmailed with, then. And- of course- that includes things you might not want Uncle Sam to know.

And he need never know if you do whatever's required. Perhaps just pass on that useful trade secret that might be of benefit to their companies, it's not a big thing...

Or whatever else they might want.

I was going to say something similar- that it said something about the current attitude that he felt the need to include that qualification in the first place.

Yeah, because I trust the current Hard-Brexiteer-pandering UK government who think "AI" will magically be able to spot and take down offensive social media posts and intend- from this position of ignorance- to compel social media networks to make that work *so* much more.

(Not that I have any liking for the social media companies either, but my enemy's enemy is *not* my friend here).

Perhaps, but R Kelly- who isn't homosexual as far as I'm aware (#)- used almost the same term in the name of a song almost 25 years ago, and it didn't stop *that* from becoming a hit.

(#) He's apparently more into the wholesome heterosexual act of urinating in the mouths of underage girls. (Link goes to music website article entitled "R. Kelly’s Alleged Sex Crimes Are Still Horrific 13 Years Later " in case you're wondering whether it's okay to click).

Unfortunately, while the logic undelying this decision is usually "it doesn't make any difference if we're both already infected", things don't actually work like that and you risk HIV superinfection.

YEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

"Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.".... cool, I'll let Roger Daltrey know that the next time I see him.

I wish someone would port it to bloody Emacs then- just about the *only* feature some obsessive hasn't added to that is a decent text editor!

Yes, that's the point I was trying to make (and *had* made repeatedly in the past) before I prematurely submitted the half-edited post. Take away freedom- or legitimacy- of criticism, and you have little more than a corporatocracy or fascism in its early 20th century form.

(...aaand that's what I get for inadvertently clicking "Submit" instead of preview before I'd finished editing.)

Having the choice not to buy Company X's product doesn't preclude criticism of Company X or the product. On top of this, exercising that right and choosing not to buy the product still doesn't shield it from criticism.

It's ironic that this rebuttal comes up so often from would-be white knights of the "free market"- or at least, by those invoking its name to defend their favoured corporate interest. If the first applied, no-one would have the right to criticise any product they weren't forced to buy at gunpoint (or whatever). This would basically shut down criticism of almost *anything* on sale. Reviews? "You don't have to buy it, so shut up about it!"

Even if only the second applied, only people who actually *bought* the product would be able to legitimately say anything against it (and I've no doubt "well, you bought it and you didn't have to!" would still be used against them). The complete antithesis of the information sharing an effective free market depends upon. This isn't support of the free market, it's corporate protectionism- that we shouldn't be allowed to say anything nasty about those things those nice companies are selling from the goodness of their hearts.

OTOH, I doubt those parroting this argument even thought about the (obvious) implications of what they were saying in that much depth!