codeup

I don't think the give-him-some-of-his-own reaction shows "how weak the defense is for this side of the argument".

You may be taking the reaction literally, but it likely just means this: If we mock this politician by threatening to apply his policy to himself, it may begin to dawn on his supporters that he is wrong.

So folks are just making fun of him, and rightly so. I just think that this particular joke may backfire (see my other comment).

Of course this would be an obvious demand and ironic. But I suggest one should only insist that he retreats from his policy aims: accept failure and/or step down.

Asking for his site to be taken down in accordance with his own misguided policy could give undue legitimacy to this policy.

The apologetic posts by Facebook engineers give deep insights.

Of course they can argue well on what are, for average users, technical details. On that level, it is possible to get entangled in endless discussions.

The real problem is that these posters seem to totally lack (or ignore) an understanding of the bigger picture of what they are contributing to.

"truly feels like important and worthwhile work"

Would you please care explaining why?

Ars Technica criticizing RSS while advertising Twitter? With respect to the point of the article, that's a false dichotomy.

Other than that, RSS is universal and decentralized whereas Twitter is a vain, contained and centralized environment.

The way this is being debated here is quite emotional and superficial, resembling the discussion on Facebook.

As far as I see, there was an open unprotected commons, and some passer-by just took everything to do with it what he wants. You may rightly find this a sad thing, but you shouldn't be too surprised. This is a well known dilemma, there are enough studies dealing with this. There's a reason why copyleft licenses establish a commons protected by copyright law.

Jonathan doesn't even discuss what Sam made of the experiment, but just hands him to the Facebook mob.