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.
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.
There appears to be an obsession with leaders and leadership in American corporate/political culture. I would like to understand it better. Can someone explain it to me?
First this: "advertising is, ultimately, a form of discovery, a way of connecting people who want or need something with those that supply it."
Then this: "How exactly is it bad to connect people with things they want and need?"
And this: "How anyone can have a moral objection to that baffles me."
This is misleading. There may be people who object to advertising in principle, but even if you don't, if you are seriously trying to think about "moral objections", you need to at least consider what is being advertised and how it is being advertised. Instead, your comment is an example of how advertising advertises itself.
What I meant isn't that this is funny but ironic because Emacs is the FSF/GPL flagship. That said, I fully understand that RMS is taking this seriously because he wants to sort this out. Maybe he'll make a joke about this one day if it turns out to be a harmless oversight.
While I agree with this conclusion and that it needs to be fixed: Wouldn't the irony in the mistake have been a good opportunity to show some sense of humor?
We've had the initial blogpost and Brian Chesky's response on Techcrunch. I would love to read what Airbnb CEOs have to say about the second blog post.
I think they should take credible steps as soon as possible to improve the author's situation. While they're at it, an explanation of how such incidents can be stopped from happening again would also be good.
If trust is so important for their business model, they have to demonstrate that Airbnb is trustworthy.
There's a comment on the page that says "Wow ! org-mode for eclipse !". Not quite, but it would be great if .org files were supported by this todo editor or some other xtext based editor in the future.
The article lost me at "Waiting for a Google Plus invite?"
I'm not waiting for an invite and don't plan to use Google Plus. Won't use Facebook either. It's not like everybody who wasn't on FB is now jumping on the G+ bandwagon.