I agree nothing of value was added, but it's a big stretch to call Doctorow's website "blogspam." That connotation has a whole 'nother set of attributes that go along with it.

He only said the article was blogspam, not the website. An otherwise reputable website can still have blogspam articles.

Likewise, it's a big stretch to call boingboing "Doctorow's website".

I noted at the end of 2014 that Boing-Boing had stopped having much value. Brief summary: unsigned advertorials in the voice of the BB staff; page view splitting to max ad revenue -- often with no more than 1-2 sentences on the last page; pushing podcasts without text equivalents; repeat entries (at the time they didn't have any decent queue management, don't know if that's changed) and finally: I've got a perfectly good RSS reader, and that entirely replaces BB with a bunch of much higher quality sources of signal.

I think I've looked at BB articles three times in the intervening years.

As of the big Wells Fargo scam, I filed BB under "actively destroying value". The brief summary they gave for the arbitration issue abandoned the real story (WF tries to force arbitration based on existing contracts) for a completely false clickbait story (WF tries to force arbitration using the forged contracts).

At this point it's really no better than HuffPo's "repackage and publish" pieces.

> Boing-Boing had stopped having much value.

Yep, I used to check it daily, but now I haven't actively checked it in years.