Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

   Yeah, how about that. In short, Microsoft
   is using a front group to throw its support
   behind SOPA, while publicly saying and doing
   nothing, thus avoiding our rancor and displeasure.
   Well, no, that won’t do at all.
Note that the article provides no support whatsoever for the claim that BSA is a Microsoft front group, or that Microsoft is using it to intentionally support SOPA.

I'm surprised this hasn't been flagged to death. Are people not actually reading the article?




Whether the BSA is a Microsoft front group or not is something people have been debating since it was founded in the late '80s, and probably depends on how close ties you require to call something a "front group". There was a bunch of debate and some litigation over it in the 1990s.


All Microsoft has to do is to publicly state they don't support SOPA. This is hard to believe because they supported PIPA.

The conclusion Microsoft suports SOPA by helping support an organzation that supports it is inescapable.


Textbook logical fallacy.


1. BSA has long been critisized as a fornt for MS. [1] 2. Microsoft is widely believed to be largest contributor to BSA [2]

How is it a fallacy to assume MS has a large voice in deciding BSA's policy? Also when you dismiss an argument with a pithy "Textbook logical fallacy", shouldn't you disclose that MS is one of your clients? [3]

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Software_Alliance#Crit... [2] http://books.google.co.in/books?id=AwsAAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA70&... [3] http://www.matasano.com/about/


Gah! You figured me out! Secret shill for Microsoft!

The fallacy is, "if they're not guilty, all they need to do is deny it". It's used by the powerful against the powerless way more often than it's used against big companies, which is all the more reason not to legitimize it.


Your boolean logic is flawless. Unfortunately, this is not what we are dealing with.

Let's, for example, assume you generously donate a given sum every month, to Greenpeace. According to you logic, nobody can say you support them.

Microsoft pays the fees required by their BSA membership and allow the entity to brag abput their membership. The entity's charter is to defend the interests of their members and one of the ways to do it is supporting SOPA. How can anyone say, considering Microsoft's previous support to PIPA and their support to BSA, that they don't support SOPA?

How likely is that Microsoft would chose not to comment and, at the same time, be against SOPA? The odds of that are vanishingly small.

About the first part of your last message, you never kept it really secret ;-)


That last sentence is contemptible. Sadly, it fits squarely into the mores of HN commenters, a majority of whom care far less about the truth than they do about whatever nerd narrative they happen to be infatuated with today.


OK. "Shill" is a bit too much, but you have to agree that, from your public persona on HN, you appear to like them better than the average HN'er.


In my life I have never had a computer that primarily booted into a Windows OS.


Interesting. I'm afraid my on-line persona can be equally misleading.


Contemptible.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: