... is not a word. Author of the original article is a moron for writing it, and Editor David is a moron for repeating it. Yet another sign that the "tech press" is mostly comprised of clueless mopes who held unspecified "IT jobs" before deciding that they wanted to write ignorant bullshit on the internet for a living.

This is exactly the extremist mindset and casual villainizing of political opponents that leads to edit wars on Wikipedia. And much less important things like everyone hating each other, and believing that democracy should be ignored to achieve the "correct" outcome.

You're a petty jackass who posts link that don't say what you claim and then throws a tantrum when people point that out.

Look at the last 15 articles on the front page. These guys are pimping every article coming out of the verge, guardian, vice, recode and nbc. Only a couple of them have an actual submitter, and in each case it's "an anonymous reader". There are of course 10+ websites to choose from covering every one of these topics.

Enough with the leftist tech site circlejerk.

Exactly the kind of bullshit article I've come to expect from The Verge, as they continue to push far-left clickbait in a desperate attempt to remain relevant. They're approaching the level of BuzzFeed at this point. What's incredible is that anyone continues to pay attention to the ham-fisted Trump condemnations that are now the bread and butter of these publications, and apparently the only kind of article they're capable to producing. Online journalism has become so lazy it's almost unbelievable.

So people should dial down or outright suppress their criticisms because a possibility exists that some of their more overzealous followers will harass the target of that criticism? Sounds good Amimojo, I'll be waiting for you to decry the next witch hunt initiated by a professional SJW with many followers. Waiting. Patiently.

Problem is the "private property" of a college campus doesn't belong to a small subset of entitled students who've decided their feelings are more important than someone else's right to speak. The default setting is that people are allowed to speak freely, and any listener is free to refute them after hearing them out. This doesn't strengthen any case for safe spaces, it's just another bullshit argument on your part driven by social justice ideology.

That would be because Peter Bright is one the biggest Microsoft shills alive and has managed to cultivate a small army of fanboys that fawn over everything MS does while taking a dim view of their main competitor.

Since you're getting praise above for prolific commenting, I'd like to state the opposite - it's annoying and pathetic to see people who can't restrain themselves to simply stating their opinions succinctly and moving on with their day. Nope, it's ABSOLUTELY IMPERATIVE that everyone in the thread with a 'wrong' opinion be corrected in every single instance, otherwise the racist alt-right bigots might ... GASP ... think they're winning. You spam around calling people out for a lack of decorum while showing none yourself. Slashdot ought to set a post limit to regulate this kind of behavior, which is reminiscent of a 12 year old throwing a temper tantrum on twitter.

Seems likely they're also guilty of manipulating moderation when someone posts something critical of their management they don't want to hear. Take the comment thread linked below for example. When I first saw the parent post a few days ago, it was moderated at +3 or +4 insightful. Now it's at -1 flamebait while the boilerplate responses by whipslash are apparently worthy of +5.

https://slashdot.org/comments....

Hackernews is an extreme left Silicon Valley wankfest where, much like Ars Technica, they're very intolerant of any opinions viewed to be insufficiently progressive. You often hear the regulars chirping about how insightful the discussion is compared to so many other "toxic" websites, but this simply isn't supported by any objective appraisal of the commentary. Spending years living in an echo chamber distorts one's view of reality.

Take your concern trolling elsewhere.

As is Glenn Greenwald. Regarding the second set of "independent researchers", a group by the name of PropOrNot:
https://twitter.com/ggreenwald...

And as for the first source, The Foreign Policy Research Institute's motto is:
"Bringing the insights of scholarship to bear on the development of policies that advance U.S. national interests"

Ahhh yes, that bastion of journalistic integrity from Gawker is definitely the one we need to point out the consequences of inaccurate reporting on the internet.

I'm curious to know, how can one possibly like an interview where the subject dodges every inconvenient questions asked? It was calculated PR and victim narrative just as everything Wu does is, and if you want to get behind that as being "a good interview" then I have no reservations in calling bullshit on it. The likes of amimojo and yourself seem desperate to normalize such content on slashdot, whereas the majority of the audience sees it for the progressive wank-fest that it is.

The remainder of your post merely serves to indicate how hypocritical an deluded you've become. Accuse other people of ad-homs when you yourself have only slung insults from the start and never explained your position. Ahh right, I forget the sort of mental gymnastics that are possible when you've decided ahead of time that you're on the good side fighting the good fight. No need for objective appraisal of people / events, just keep pounding away with labels and ideology.

As charming is the faux concern is ("IT WILL LEAD YOU THE DARK SIDE" lololol), if you're really out to change people's minds then you'd be well advised to explain yourself instead of acting like some crazed Baptist preacher at the pulpit.