What Your Online Comments Say About You 267
circletimessquare writes: The New York Times has a piece summarizing some recent research and recent discussion about the quality, or lack thereof, of online comments. "[Washington State University researchers] found that the comments on a public-service announcement about vaccination affected readers' attitudes as strongly as the P.S.A. itself did. When commenters were identified by their level of expertise with the subject (i.e. as doctors), their comments were more influential than the P.S.A.s. Online readers may put a lot of stock in comments because they view commenters 'as kind of similar to themselves,' said Mr. Weber — 'they're reading the same thing, commenting on the same thing.' And, he added, many readers, especially those who are less Internet-savvy, assume commenters 'know something about the subject, because otherwise they wouldn't be commenting on it.' The mere act of commenting, then, can confer an unearned aura of credibility."
First Post (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
First post is dangerous dude!! You can trust me I'm an internet commenter.
Re:First Post (Score:5, Informative)
Normal Person + Anonymity + Audience = Total Fuckwad
Face it, it explains everything.
Re: (Score:2)
Problem is it has evolved, even with real information attached to you, a lot of gamers on Xbox Live are complete fuckwads. I have stopped public online gaming completely because of it. Just try and play GTA V in a public game.
Re: (Score:2)
I comment, therefore, I am... smart.
Re:First Post (Score:4, Insightful)
John Gabriel's Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory [penny-arcade.com]:
Normal Person + Anonymity + Audience = Total Fuckwad
Face it, it explains everything.
I think it explains half, mostly the trolling half.
The other half is the fact that people speak up when they're passionate about something, and there's nothing that makes you as passionate as thinking you know the truth when everyone else is wrong.
Personally I think the solution is to speak up even when you don't care that much. You can't convince the fringe players that they're wrong, but you can demonstrate to them (and others) that the fringe viewpoint is a minority one.
Re:First Post (Score:4, Insightful)
Normal Person + Anonymity + Audience = Total Fuckwad
Face it, it explains everything.
This would be a useful equation if it weren't for the fact that the person in question was a fuckwad long before the anonymity or audience came. The idea that a thoughtful, virtuous person somehow becomes a troll because of anonymity and an audience is bullshit. The only thing anonymity does is melt away the facade of civility a fuckwad has carefully crafted for themselves.
Re: (Score:2)
If you don't put a trigger warning on posts like this, it constitutes a misogynist micro-aggression, you insensitive clod.
Re: Another pro-vaccination article (Score:2)
No, it's a disguised pro-space article. Muahahahahaha!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Educated people generally skew towards liberalism. Why are you here?
Yeah, right (Score:4, Insightful)
I most certainly do not assume anyone is an "expert" because they're posting an internet comment. I assume they're a typical, uneducated, ill-informed, panic-mongering, fear-driven sheep. And I presume everyone else thinks of my comments the same way.
The public, as a whole, is comprised of people who are of less than average intelligence 50% of the time. And from what I see commented on news sites and such, the dumber they are, the more they have to say...
Re: (Score:2)
So your presumption is wrong.
What have you learned about how *other people* filter and interpret information they read in comments? In particular maybe you have learned something about how uniformed comments influence the majority of people that read them, regardless of whether or not you are in that majority.
Re: (Score:3)
I have my own set of assumptions about the character of commenters, assumptions which are usually influenced by the site I'm reading, but even when I go into a thread with the assumption that there will be a bunch of people spouting off with an air of authority on some subject of which they actually know
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Third, you can spend hours fact checking the claim in order to eventually, finally, reassure yourself that yes, they are lying sacks of shit and no part of what they said was representative of the truth.
How often do you actually take the third option? How often can you, really? That's like asking someone how many EULAs they read.
All the time, actually.
Before the internet was so comprehensive, not very much, I'll admit. But now I can search for information on just about anything, and within a minute (not "hours"), I can be reading professional journal articles on the topic.
If I see a post I know is right (or at least includes a bunch of stuff I know is right already), I generally skim it or pass by. If I see a post that I know is wrong, I may reply with what I know, or I may just ignore it depending on how much I care.
But
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It does work, and you see it used all the time on TV. When some opinion mouthpiece masquerading as news wants to convince you of something they will often find an "expert" with some dubious credentials. How often do you hear phrases like "scientists believe" without reference to who those people, or if they are just claiming to be scientists without any real credentials.
Claiming false credentials is one of the most basic and effective tactics used by people trying to manipulate public opinion, such as astro
I'm not a doctor ... (Score:2)
And it can be hilarious.
http://mentalfloss.com/article/56279/who-originally-said-im-not-doctor-i-play-one-tv [mentalfloss.com]
Which is also the reason why "dentists" in advertisements wear stethoscopes.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think the phrase you are looking for is an "appeal to authority"
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm an expert at reading comments.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The public, as a whole, is comprised of people who are of less than average intelligence 50% of the time.
It's a bell curve, not a V. People with IQ "the exact number considered average" are the most populous compared to all other points on the chart. If IQ "average" was a score impossible to achieve, then your "50% below, 50% above" concept would make sense. As it is, it's a little less than 50% for both. And if "average" is a range rather than a precise number (most people consider it to be so with intelligence), then the percentages of population above and below drop considerably.
Re: (Score:2)
many readers, especially those who are less Internet-savvy, assume commenters “know something about the subject, because otherwise they wouldn’t be commenting on it.” The mere act of commenting, then, can confer an unearned aura of credibility.
Obviously, no Slashdot reader would fall victim to this mistake!!!
NOT because they are more Internet-savvy, but because they have been cured of any tendency to assume commenters know anything about the subject! Ha ha
SubjectsInCommentsAreStupid (Score:2)
Thus my nickname.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It means that you don't know that Les is a common English name.
Re: (Score:2)
Did they miss (Score:2)
she and her co-authors Aneta K. Molenda and Charlotte R. Cramer analyzed comments from three sources (The New York Times, the Discover magazine science blog and a Facebook group for science buffs)
slashdot ? the mother of all commenting kungfu
bogus story (Score:2)
Trust me. I'm just like you and I'm an expert. You can believe my comments when I tell you that this story is bogus. You and I, we're like peas in a pod and we know when a slashdot story is misleading. Less savvy readers believe stories like this but not us. NYT, WSU, what do they know? As long as we stick together we will know the truth. Right on bro!
Clearly, we must regulate comments! (Score:5, Insightful)
This research clearly shows, the comments must be regulated — to ensure, only the certified experts are allowed to express opinions, and that all different points of view are fairly [wikipedia.org] represented. The current so-called "freedom" is, obviously, putting us in danger — and it is over-rated anyway [businessweek.com].
To keep the "playing field" level, the hitherto unregulated online news-sources (which also attract the most dangerous comments) shall be subjected to the same rules [cato.org] as TV-broadcasters, thus shutting down the smaller and annoyingly quirky ones among them. The respected (and, incidentally, government-supporting) establishments will thus be (smartly) helped [cjr.org].
Dissemination of information deemed incorrect by the benevolent and omniscient regulators, or failures to represent all points of view fairly, shall lead to the withdrawals of certification and any other licenses — easy to achieve without much fuss because a license, by definition is a permission granted by the Executive, and can be withdrawn (or not-renewed) without having to convince the skeptical Judiciary [latimes.com]. Anybody talking about the First Amendment shall be ignored (and put on a watch-list [examiner.com]) as a fringe crazy — this is not the 60-ies, you can not protest like that [dailycaller.com].
Re: (Score:2)
I understand the point you're trying to make, but in reality, the danger of people giving advice that actually matters when they are not qualified to do so and other people are likely to be harmed as a result is exactly why professions such as law, accountancy, engineering and medical practice are regulated by law in many places, and claiming to be qualified in these professions when you are not is then against the law.
Re: (Score:2)
First Amendment.
You can claim anything you want with no trouble.
You can even take money for it, if you can find someone to pay you.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you suggesting that if you walked into a public place and seriously told a security guard that you were carrying a bomb and intended to blow it up, nothing would happen?
Personally, I don't think that's a very good idea. The consequences of just making that claim would cause significant harm to a lot of people, and I have no problem with the law prohibiting it.
(Of course you can take this idea too far, as we've seen in the UK in recent years when absurd legal cases have been brought against people who ma
Re: (Score:2)
You can claim anything you want with no trouble.
Yes, you can, at the bar or wherever.
If you're claiming to be a doctor and offering medical services, however, that is a crime. Same for legal services, professional engineering services, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, and our point is, any law prohibiting such claims is contrary to the First Amendment.
Now, actually offering medical services — there things are less obvious, I'll give you that...
Re: (Score:2)
The part of my comment you elided was "and offering medical services", which completely changed the meaning of the quote. Are you aiming for a career in journalism?
To be clear, it is not illegal to claim to be a doctor in contexts that don't involve offering medical advice/service, so there is no conflict with the first amendment.
Re: (Score:2)
You are making an argument against the First Amendment. May be, you have a point. Indeed, many countries live without such law and/or do not consider the freedom of speech to be particularly sacred. But it is the law of the land here and is, generally, cherished by most Americans.
Not because we want to hear more liars, but because we are afraid, the government's regulation required to keep them at bay is worse than the or
Re: (Score:2)
You are making an argument against the First Amendment.
Yes, I am, because I find the idea that absolute freedom of speech does or should trump all other rights, freedoms and responsibilities to be dangerous, both in principle and in practice.
It is also contrary to both the letter and the spirit of the law just about everywhere. There is literally no country on the planet -- including the United States of America -- where you can say whatever you want, regardless of the truth of it or the damage it may cause, and be immune to any consequences in law. Life just d
Re: (Score:2)
No! Speech is not dangerous. The only exception we could possibly argue is yelling "FIRE! Save yourself!" in a crowded theater. That is not dangerous in reality because of the words, it is dangerous because the cramped space and resulting stampede. Yell "FIRE! Save Yourself!" in an open field and people will wonder how mentally handicapped you really are. It is perfectly legal to look like an idiot.
You do not seem to have basic grasp of what science is, let alone politics or subjects that are purely o
Re: (Score:2)
Your first question is just idiocy, if you really care go read about censorship and it's dangers. Yelling "I KILL YOU" does not kill you, and yelling "EVERYONE KILL THAT GUY" does not make everyone kill that guy. Any claim that it does cause harm ignores facts. Maybe in your fantasy world magic words do exist, but to the rest of society we know better.
To your second part I gave a great example and you ignored it. You also can't seem to grasp the difference between facts and not facts, such as theory and
Re: (Score:2)
Speech is dangerous to the would-be tyrants, who want it regulated. It is not dangerous to the actual society of free citizens.
"Words," — Stalin, said — "are more dangerous than bullets, so why should we not control words?"
You are in good company.
Re: (Score:2)
Speech is dangerous to the would-be tyrants, who want it regulated. It is not dangerous to the actual society of free citizens.
You did actually read the article, right? The entire point here is that misleading speech can in practice convey unwarranted credibility and thus cause harm to those who wrongly believe what is said.
Re: (Score:2)
Go ahead, then, you know the process [archives.gov].
Re: (Score:2)
As I don't live in the US, the obsession with the First Amendment in certain parts of the US population isn't really my problem, nor that of anyone else where I live.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Give an example of what you mean.
You maliciously accuse someone of a serious crime, say rape or child abuse, that they did not commit. They are found not guilty in court, yet still suffer irreparable damage to their personal relationships and professional career as a result of the allegations and the costs and distress caused by the resulting proceedings.
I don't think your freedom to tell lies about someone else and consequently destroy their life outweighs their right not to be defamed.
Are you that slow? (Score:3)
Perhaps you missed the article yesterday where a prominent University proved that the FDA does not do it's job, it works for Agriculture and Pharmaceutical companies. Maybe you missed the fact that the NSA spying on everyone all the time did not catch a single terrorist event in the US, and no mass shooters were caught either (which I guess we could call not sponsored terrorism, and probably should given media's handling). Maybe you missed another prominent University study last year which determined that
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, regulatory capture is a Bad Thing. It often happens when you let politicians and the corporate interests that sponsor them dictate the terms of the debate rather than subject matter experts. That makes it an excellent argument for why subject matter experts must be free to say they are properly qualified and politicians must not be free to claim the same level of qualification when they have not earned it.
People are fully capable of checking facts all by themselves.
No, they aren't. That's the point. Some fields are sufficiently complicated that a normal person w
Re: (Score:2)
It often happens when you let politicians and the corporate interests that sponsor them dictate the terms of the debate rather than subject matter experts
It also happens when attempting to regulate "expert's opinion". That regulation happened during the Dark Ages all the time. Governments and Religions are not run by scientists, they are run by people hoarding power in all of it's various forms. You seem to have a delusion that everyone in Government is altruistic, and I gave you some references so that you can prove it false.
The rest of the first world called and asked for their money back.
Bullshit! I'm not claiming the US is perfect, and surely not claiming that it's populace can't be fooled. We were fooled into a w
Re: (Score:2)
You seem to have a delusion that everyone in Government is altruistic
I honestly have no idea where you got that from. Nothing could be further from the truth.
In fact, the need to prevent political operatives and corporate PR departments from misleadingly claiming to hold the same peer-approved credentials as real scientists and engineers and doctors is one of the most important reasons I hold the view I do on this subject.
In my country, for example, a drugs company may not lawfully run a TV ad that makes false claims about the effectiveness of its product. In fact, for drugs
Re: (Score:2)
Wonderful. Unfortunately, requiring certification — as seems to be your proposal — will continue to allow those same politicians to control, just who is free to call themselves a "subject matter expert".
And that's a graver danger, than a few schmucks being misled by a liar.
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately, requiring certification — as seems to be your proposal — will continue to allow those same politicians to control, just who is free to call themselves a "subject matter expert".
Why? The politicians don't award higher degrees and professional qualifications. Generally, within regulated industries, these matters are adjudicated by more experienced peers. In the absence of any absolute truth, I don't know of any better way to run such a system than open peer review.
Sure, in principle you could undermine that system and corrupt the whole thing, but to do that you'd have to undermine the entire community to the extent that established participants almost unanimously agreed with your di
Both First and Second... (Score:2)
Heh-heh... Yes, finally, the First Amendment is compared with the Second. Indeed, we must introduce the following pragmatic and common sense measures and clarifications:
Re: (Score:2)
You missed the memo. Leftists don't believe in free speech any more. The whole "Freeze Peach" thing comes from the left.
Re: (Score:2)
Unless you're referring to garish shirts worn by scientists or - the horror - people who hold politically correct views, or may even disagree with you.
Re: (Score:3)
Down modding is not true censoring. People are free to browse at (-1) and I normally do, especially when I have mod points.
Sure, sock puppetry and other trickery can be used to quiet certain people and opinions, but that is not the same thing as silencing them.
That Explains Why Online News Is Removing Comments (Score:4, Insightful)
That explains why many news organizations are removing the ability to comment from their sites: because it was undermining the effectiveness of the favored propaganda they pass along as 'news'. Remember kids, journalistic bias is all about WHICH propaganda you decide to go to press with.
Re:That Explains Why Online News Is Removing Comme (Score:5, Insightful)
Or maybe the comments are just so full of utter garbage posted by the most degenerate members of society that it turns off regular readers.
Re: (Score:3)
One of the reasons that I have not run my own forums, even as one of the first people with Internet connectivity in the UK for example, is the horror of dealing with that effect. I sincerely believe most people around me to be decent human beings, with some rougher edges exposed when not talking face to face.
But what is it that happens with discussion threads?
Rgds
Damon
Re: (Score:2)
Yet if you gave readers the opportunity to turn on/off visible comments, I wonder which would win?
I'm almost certain most people would leave the comments, after all, you don't have to read them. Which then suggests that no, it really IS more about protecting themselves as the sole authority, because monologue is so much easier than dialogue.
"Great" Journalism Deserves Protection? (Score:2)
Brian Williams is proof. Those damn people that proved him a liar blew it, he was one of the highest rated bullshit sellers on NBC for decades.
Oh, I know.. it's not like journalists are supposed to.. you know.. make a journal of their expeditions. They never write shit down or capture pictures.. so it was clearly "false memory" that caused the problem right?
I really hope you are not dumb enough to believe anything you are told by media, including that last line. Brian Williams had a job of selling war, a
Re: (Score:2)
many news organizations are removing the ability to comment
The difficulty there is that it also reduces the engagement with the readers and thus the number of times they will return to the page and therefore see the advertisements. There do appear to be many (previously respectable) newspaper websites that publish articles that are only there as click-bait.
The the UK The Guardian (a once respectable, semi-liberal, print publication) has taken that route to publishing inflammatory, poorly written and factually incorrect op-ed / opinion pieces on its website who's
Case in Point - KOMO's Gamergate Story (Score:2)
That explains why many news organizations are removing the ability to comment from their sites: because it was undermining the effectiveness of the favored propaganda they pass along as 'news'. Remember kids, journalistic bias is all about WHICH propaganda you decide to go to press with.
Yup.
Just last week, KOMO TV in Seattle aired a biased [youtube.com] Gamergate story [komonews.com] (though, as a sad indication of how low the bar is, it's way less biased than most news media). Three days later, there was a note at the bottom of every story, saying site comments are no more:
http://www.komonews.com/news/l... [komonews.com]
Looks like too many gamers were fact-checking their work, and it was too embarassing to let people see that happen.
Poe's Law at Work (Score:2)
Breathtaking (Score:5, Funny)
'DrPhil' as handle more 'influential than 'BigDickForHire' ?
Who would have thought.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Just talk to people and you will se the same thing. Be it in a meeting, in a pub or wherever.
That's somewhat true. Although, I know I "cheated" here by reading TFA, but the summary is actually quite bad in this case. For example, the first half of TFA talks a lot about sexism issues in commenting and other things.
So it happens in the real world. It has happend since ages. Why would it surprise anybody that it happens on the Internet?
Well, as TFA points out, one thing that is different about the internet is that the more disconnected (and often anonymous) nature of internet commenting tends to lead people to have fewer inhibitions when commenting -- probably more so than even in a pub (to take your example) for many
What did they actually learn? (Score:2, Insightful)
It didn't appear that they figured anything out that any moron on the internet wouldn't simply take for granted.
It is painful... why does the new york times exist? They still are obviously baffled by the internet.
Re: (Score:2)
Too true. My father for example despises the paper yet he subscribes to it because he comes from a generation where if you didn't read the NYTs you'd miss something. He's literally afraid not to read the fucking thing because despite the fact that he reads blogs, internet news sources, etc he still doesn't quite trust it. And so he subscribes.
Drink (Score:4, Funny)
Plus, obligatory XKCD [xkcd.com]
The default state: Skeptical (Score:3)
I assume everyone talking has no fucking clue what they're talking about until they prove otherwise.
In all my many years on the internet I've come to a single conclusion: most people venture so far out of their own domains of expertise that it's saddening. You see it constantly. Bring up marijuana and suddenly everyone is a medical expert. Bring up PC repair/modification and suddenly everyone is an Engineer.
This may just be my own unqualified opinion on the subject but it seems like nothing turns people in to a pack of complete idiots faster than anonymity.
Re: (Score:2)
This may just be my own unqualified opinion on the subject but it seems like nothing turns people in to a pack of complete idiots faster than anonymity.
Alcohol and firearms work better for that, but you do have to be in meatspace.
Re: (Score:2)
This may just be my own unqualified opinion on the subject but it seems like nothing turns people in to a pack of complete idiots faster than anonymity.
Agreed -- which is the primary case for pseudonymity.
I agree that there is plenty of value in real names on the internet when someone is actually going to offer something in their official professional capacity or area of expertise. When some dude starts spouting medical advice, and you can found out that he's using his real name AND is a doctor, maybe that can change your judgment.
But maybe that doctor also wants to offer other opinions on topics related to medical science, but maybe the issues are mo
Often the comments *are* better (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm surprised nobody has mentioned this yet, on Slashdot of all places. How many times have you seen a shitty submission here and comments correcting it? It's practically Slashdot's unofficial slogan: "yeah, the stories are awful, but I come for the comments".
Re: (Score:2)
The comments in the "Nim Programming Language Gaining Traction" submission on the front page are pretty awful at the moment. Let's hope you are right and the quality of subsequent comments increases dramatically. I was hoping for better ...
Re: (Score:2)
The other phenomenon I see is that for enthusiast sites for autos, watches, etc., the comments tend to all come from the same few people with thousands of posts.
Re: (Score:3)
Slashdot's comments are upvoted/downvoted in a more granular fashion than any other site out there and comment display can be skewed by user preferences - I penalize "funny" posts and really wish I could do the same on Reddit. The best the rest of the internet has managed to implement is a Nero-style upvote/downvote system, which puts the same weight on puns and one-liners as it does on trolls and insightful responses.
Commenting in general is ripe for disruption - if Disqus [disqus.com] upgraded from upvote/downvote to
I come for the comments? (Score:2)
It's rare that any comment here adds to the total sum of human knowledge. For instance just take a look at the comments on "Nim Programming Language Gaining Traction [slashdot.org]".
Re: (Score:2)
The search for positive reinforcement (Score:2)
many readers, especially those who are less Internet-savvy, assume commenters 'know something about the subject, because otherwise they wouldn't be commenting on it.
I believe that people are more inclined to give credibility to comments that they already have some sympathy with - rather than ones which take an opposing view.
I've never seen any follow-up comments, anywhere, that say "yes, you're right. I used to think differently, but your arguments have persuaded me I was wrong". At best you get other like-minded people agreeing with you and at worst you get those who disagree making an extreme, offensive, insulting or threatening retorts.
It also seems likely that t
Re: (Score:2)
Confirmation bias is strong even when people try to avoid it, but I have once or twice even here on /. said words to the effect "thank you for that explanation I didn't have a clue" and "yes, I take your point".
It can happen, just not often, and changing an opinion is often a slow and gradual (and sometimes embarrassing) process, unlikely to be visible in the course of a single response.
Rgds
Damon
Easy one. (Score:2)
They say I should drink more.
They used Public Service Announcements (Score:2)
Everyone over the age of 5 knows a Public Service Announcement is propaganda. Of course the comments were more influential; they didn't have to clear a high bar. Give it a few years and everyone will know the comments are mostly from shills, trolls, and know-nothings, and we'll be back to the healthy status quo of no one with any sense believing anything they read without triple-checking it.
Gossip (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Why are we getting this bullshit repeated again from six months or so ago?"
This time it's posted by somebody with a more influential nick.
Re: (Score:2)
In the spirit of egalitarianism UIDs didn't even used to get displayed on Slashdot.
It wasn't until (the *horror* of it) people started forging Bruce Perens' name on posts that they switched it so that UIDs are displayed. It was a dark day.
Thanks, Bruce.
Re: (Score:2)
Trust me. I work for the Temporal Bureau.
Re: (Score:3)
Sorry, but wrong. Any comment will not be judged by the merits of the arguments but by the prevailing groupthink in the audience. If you need any proof of this, go to a conservative discussion board and present your arguments for evolution. Or try a liberal discussion board and argue the qualities of a non-flat tax system.
Your credibility in a group is always determined by how much your arguments match what the group considers "the truth". The closer you are to that "truth", the more credible you are becaus
Re: (Score:2)
Is it established by the article? The first post?
Re: (Score:2)
Dude, Blacks are just as racist as whites. Same as latinos and asians, etc... Every single "race" (we are all humans you dorks) has buttloads of racism in it. In fact ask very very dark black men and women how racist light colored blacks are against them. Or ask Sunni's how racist Shittites are agaisnt them...
Humanity is just 60% assholes and 40% normal people. And for some reason we are built to love and embrace hatred of those that are not exactly like us.
Re: (Score:2)
How can they increase the supply of labor? Multiculturalism, racial integration, feminism and mass immigration increases the supply of labor, thus depressing wages and increasing corporate profits.
For a long time, this increase in the supply of labour allowed people to consume more. They could buy bigger houses, newer cars, take vacations, and the economy grew like crazy. A two-income family can earn and spend more than a single-income family, and all those "Rosie the Riveters" were no longer going to take a back seat in the economy. The growing economy created labour shortages, which increased wages, allowing people to consume even more. It was a "virtuous circle" that worked from the 1940s more or
Re: (Score:2)
This is abuse. Arguments are down the hall.....
Re: (Score:2)
On a more serious view - your initial argument (that corporations like the NYT who rely on 'big advertisers' have comment sections that reflect some underlying need of those advertisers)- is way too simplistic and over arching. There is likely a grain of truth in it, but as a general rule falls flat.
It isn't trolling and your English is better than most (although a low bar and you didn't help your cause by stating you teach English in Texas - having spent a dozen years of my life there I am not sure that '
Re: (Score:3)
While I can believer your fourth point, maybe, what do these three things have to do with labor supply?
Because you're the biggest idiot in the world?
Re: My two cents (Score:2)
Are you from the island of truth-telling commenters, or from the island of lying commenters?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Mount Stupid (Score:2)
Mount Stupid? I can't keep up with all these new Bitcoin exchanges.
Re: (Score:2)