Worse, there are entire subjects that have been pushed aside by interested parties systematically building a consensus through media that some topics are "discredited" or "unfounded" or "unproven" theories, or even "conspiracy theories," to the point where most people will automatically dismiss them if they are brought up in conversation. The difficulty is that if you don't have a direct interest in the subject, you are very unlikely to spend the energy to investigate the subject yourself and make an informed decision, and those who want to suppress backlash know that.
"Roundup? I never use that stuff. Who cares?"
Indeed, it would have been a better article if she had focused on how common this stuff is. And just used her own experience as the lead.
No, it would just require evidence of actual malice: that is, knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth.
“Actual malice” is a much higher bar than is generally in place for libel, but it is not an insurmountable bar.
> I mean, consider what people say in political campaigns.
Litigation over political campaign statements for defamation is fruitless for reasons aside from the legal standard to win a judgement; it takes to long to get a final verdict, but more importantly the litigation itself keeps whatever damaging claim you are trying to suppress at the center of the news, doing your opponents work for them.
So she (and others, similarly targeted) might at least get ~decent settlements.
I guess that I was thinking about this in the context of SLAPP suits and assassinations (e.g., Karen Silkwood).
But something this focused on one specific individual I haven't seen before, not on HN at least. I don't think it would be nearly as obvious as what China's doing, though.
For example, Um is a sound we make while composing a thought it has no place in the written form. People commonly abbreviate things like "you" as u because typing letters by hitting a numeric keypad the correct number of times is incredibly cumbersome whereas everyone now has a passable keyboard even on their phone. Please write out the entire word.
Once you get past all that the point made is very shallow and ill formed. It suggests that because the world is rife with bad behavior by powerful people that this is uninteresting. I disagree.
If you have something substantive to say about the matter feel free to express it.
Instead of posting low effort
The problem with the above post is that it lacks substance, attacking things like using "um" in text is not productive.
Hacker News is an international website, we should remember that different cultures interact with the internet very differently.
I saw the shorthand and interpreted it as the poster probably not being from a western country rather than taking it as some personal slight or indication that the poster doesn't respect their audience on HN.
If the poster had made a more substantive point, I'd hate to see people attack them for using "um" or some shorthand here and there.
The post is jarring because it says nothing of substance and it says it badly. Prompting people to communicate better is worth doing.
That's just wrong. I don't know what to tell you.
I'm from Ghana, if you took 10 random online posts from friends without names and showed them to me, I could easily tell you which ones are my Ghanian friends and which ones are my American friends.
In general, different countries have different cultures about everything from emoticons to grammar online. It's telling that you didn't realize this.
> English is not stagnant
No it's not, but potato means potato, and cancer means cancer. How you read it or speak it is your thing. And one of Quality's definitions is: "compliance to specifications".
I would like to believe that the audience here is mostly high quality audience, I have to admit that language barriers exist that would make some people seem less eloquent, but by your definition we'll end up having "Idiocracy" (what humour, food, health, etc. may become).
Why are you so worked up about the english grammar?