With that in mind, I think Monsanto deserves criticism, but I also maintain as healthy a skepticism of the of the critics claim of danger as monsantos claim of safety.
Because of this I've often found myself trying to explore the contrarian side if I feel one side has become excessively hyperbolic.
With all that said, I'm sure I'm not alone in having this experience and that others explore this contrarian angle for the same reason.
I would also add that in this thread, I find seeing strong arguments on both sides refreshing. It provides a broad range of aspects to consider for and against its usage and challenges me to do my own research to determine the veracity of the claims on both sides.
It's a symbol of an entire industry, and the disconnect between the media narrative and the reality is large.
People are uncomfortable with how little they know about their food sources, just as they are uncomfortable about how technology is changing their lives. This sells a good story. There's some truth to parts of the narrative, but at the end of the day if there's a bunch of articles on that narrative, the most accurate one is not likely to be the most read, the most read will be the one with the largest reach by its headline hook and the one that prompts people to share it the most.
I'd hold on to the tinfoil just in case.
- the value of one average joe data;
- against the value of a well orchestrated PR campaign on a site that experts, investors and intellectuals use as an information hub.
If you are skilled enough to maintain a good reputation of a client on HN, this is quite a good thing to manage IMO.
And here I am, posting comments for upvotes while maybe I could pay for it. I should step up my game.
It wasn't like that at the beginning. I tend to put my tinfoil hat on when I think about what could have caused it.