Yes, and my Internet is down again or I would have replied already. Again, the basis for her filter is so uncritical. I see where she is coming from, but hers is hardly a valuable criterion. She could at least have added something "especially if they're spouting nonsense". And yes, I also take it a bit personally. Harrumph.

I've had a previous discussion with her about the inability to easily share things on Soundcloud, and although she is professionally an archivist she does doesn't seem to care about that.

Yup. Which is fine as far as it goes. What worries me is that so many people have so little ability to think critically about anything. On all points of any spectrum.

There is only one thing that will make those social sites sit up and take notice, and that's a big drop in number of eyeballs to sell to advertisers. And I just don't believe that there are enough people who care enough about that sort of thing to leave.

The end of the world is nigh.

How time flies when you're having fun.

I don't think so. I'm quite good at spotting the bait. This was directly from the link in my RSS reader. And the weird part is, the reader had the entire text of the story. So, maybe not all that well thought out on the part of Mother Jones.

I probably missed the warning.

Interesting. Mother Jones magazine just went all Access Denied on me. I'd be happy to pay per article -- I don't get that much from there. The RSS feed generally has enough information to decide wether I want to read there whole thing. But I'm not sure I want either to register or to make an overall donation.

Me too.

@phoneboy
I will definitely be looking at it with interest because I am not satisfied with my current implementation of Known.

//