codeup

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).

Asking for his site to be taken down in accordance with his own misguided policy could give undue legitimacy to this policy.

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.

Would you please care explaining why?

Other than that, RSS is universal and decentralized whereas Twitter is a vain, contained and centralized environment.

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.

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.

Edit: clarified for coherence

I doubt you know enough about the different sides of the fairly complex story to come up with definitive lessons learned at this point.

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?

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.

Google has set up a dedicated website to help push people towards using their email service.

That's just one side of the medal. The other is that Google wants people to stop using their current email provider and move to them.

"Save your friends from YOUNAMEIT"

Maybe we'll also see more sites that help you save your friends from continuing to use Gmail, Facebook, Skype,...

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.

Macs are shipped with Mac OS but they're personal computers and other PCs can run operating systems other than Windows.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

Since when is this some kind of feature for quality or authority?

Instead you make hair-raising comparisons and close by writing: "I don't think Jason Fried, DHH, and co. are monsters, but".

This is a low form of an ad-hominem attack.

This post by 37signals is criticizing the way market capitalization is often determined. Facebook's current valuation is just an extreme example.

Your choice to ignore the argument doesn't mean there is none.

Unconvincing.