I used to read Ars.Technica a lot more, but I kept getting sucked into the comments threads. As with virtually all comments sections on the Web, Ars' are long, sometimes informative, and always time-consuming. Eventually, even though Ars thoughtfully now hides an article's comments by default, I gave up trying to drink from that firehose.
I had forgotten all that when I waded into a 22 December 2010 piece on the FCC's then just-issued rule mandating an "open Internet". Nate Anderson's article chastises other commentators, such as those on Engadget and TechCrunch, who reacted with suspicions of back-room conspiracies between the FCC and big ISPs like Verizon. Anderson's claim is that the FCC did its best to tread lightly between the sharp-edged political rocks on all sides, and in particular he thinks it's more technically astute than many of its critics believe.
The FCC's rule, or at least its preliminary notes thereon (nothing is set in stone as yet), attracted a lot of bickering in the comments. Actually, it attracted a really prolonged and occasionally vituperative exchange between a few posters. I commend them for their technical savvy, but a few of them -- I'm thinking of one in particular, but I'll refrain from specifying which -- would benefit from a little introspection as to whether their condescension and improperly personal jibes help or hurt their arguments. You can be technically right and still lose the debate because people are too repelled by your behavior to weigh your arguments on a rational basis.
No comments:
Post a Comment