Its loss of relevance was obvious and its censorship, notorious

Posted Apr 10, 2011 8:24 UTC (Sun) by bjacob (guest, #58566)
In reply to: Its loss of relevance was obvious and its censorship, notorious by bjacob
Parent article: Groklaw shutting down in May

> On the occasion of the announcement of Groklaw's shutdown (which for now is just an announcement), many people appear to think only about the good that Groklaw presumably did and tend to forget its dark side: its devious censorship ("sandboxing") of user comments designed to suppress dissent and fabricate consensus in its community in the eyes of third parties.

Holy cow! Actually, not only your link is just a vague accusation and not a conviction; but actually the source for this accusation, as quoted in this link, is... yourself!!!

Don't you agree, that quoting oneself as citation is useless? And that it only makes things worse, that you used a third party (who quoted you) as proxy for that?

Its loss of relevance was obvious and its censorship, notorious

Posted Apr 11, 2011 0:24 UTC (Mon) by jspaleta (subscriber, #50639) [Link]

It's not useless. It helps create a certain perception of relevance. Now usually when this sort of thing happens there is an extra layer of indirection. Where a government agency or business entity wants to build a certain perception for a policy or product. They'll leak some information to the media on an anonymous basis. Someone in the media will parrot it in a sound bite with some hand-waving citation, a second media source will rebroadcast and then the original entity will point to it the media coverage and spin it to build the perception they want in their talking points.

So not useless at all. Unethical and manipulative..but far from useless.

It's actually sort of refreshing to see someone quoting themselves without the typical layer of indirection. It's a very Donald Trump sort of thing to do. And by that I mean "classy{tm}."

-jef