I'm sorry for being so old fashioned as believing in the simple concept that when I comment on site A it doesn't mean I automatically want it reproduced in full on site B, C, D and E. I'm sorry for being so old fashioned in believing that as the author it removes value from /my work/. I'm sorry for being so old fashioned for complaining when these "advantages" aren't "advantages" for me but rather some 3rd party company or blog who are trying to profit from my work instead, perhaps even suggesting some implied endorsement, and being so old fashioned to /dare/ raise an objection when they try and do so.
Sorry for being so old fashioned that thinking that any company that is based around the concept of taking other people's content and reproducing it wholesale without considering the wishes of the copyright owners or authors is fundamentally flawed as a business and raises many dubious ethical and legal questions.
Or, perhaps, I should put my objections in a more concise manner that you'll understand. How can I, as an author, do this:
Oh, and your site doesn't seem to support people who edit their comments correctly; they appear as duplicates.
I'm reminded of websites that don't want others to link to them. Or of the losing battle of the RIAA. You can waste your breath fighting it. Or you can focus on how to keep people listening to you.
I guess I've never viewed my comments on other people's sites with such strong ownership.
Hijacking other people's content without permission should not be considered a business model.
And for all the people who have modded me down, why? Explain the flaw in my logic, or is it a case of "Well, I like it and he doesn't so I'll mod him down"?