deramisan

I have already conceded that the article could have cited better sources, but my point remains: you could have as well. You implied that the article author did not know as much as you did. You suggested that they were not only not citing sources that didn't help the argument but also making factually inaccurate claims.

In so doing, you took an implicit position of authority on the matter by claiming (as a user with insider knowledge) that the author was wrong. That was wrong, which makes you equally (or more so) guilty of unsound reasoning and misleading or misguided argument. If you claim to know better and are wrong, doesn't that make your statements even more misguided than someone who raises 'concerns' about an issue and says it quote "sounds like Gmail' and turns about to be justified in these concerns?

The article clearly raises the entire question as a 'concern' as stated in the headline. Your statements were much closer to being assertions of fact based on expert opinion. Could the article have cited better sources? Yes. Does that mean the article author didn't know what he was talking about? No, and the article turned out to be correct. Could you have cited better sources yourself? Yes. Did it turn out that the article was right and you were wrong? Also yes.

You tell me. Seriously. You tell me: what is worse: (1) failing to site the right source but writing truthful content, or (2) implicitly claiming expert status and writing false content defaming an accurate source.

Hahahah awesome. So you basically criticized the article for doing something it didn't do (make misguided claims), then in the same breath you yourself made misguided claims. This is almost too funny for words. You wrote:

"Its great to see people who haven't used a service making misguided claims."

Then you wrote:

"The privacy policy clearly states that they will do what the article is insinuating."

Misguided claims? Now you concede that the article was correct and that its claims were not misguided. So you made the false claim that the article was making misguided claims without bothering to make sure your own claims weren't misguided. What a mouthful! Yes, the article could have had more relevant direct quotes from Pownce, but it was based on solid fact as you now admit - unlike your own claims which were patently false. Let me sum it up: the article was right, and you falsely accused it of being wrong, thereby doing exactly what the article didn't do and what you criticized it for - making misguided claims.

Let's just keep this simple:'

1) We know Kevin Rose isn't a man of principle - he sides with corporations to save his skin, then the mob if he risks losing his followers (see: Digg HD-DVD scandal)

2) There is money to be made by targetting ads that used scraped content as a basis for choosing what to display to who (see: Google)

3) There is nothing in the Pownce privacy policy that says they won't scrape your content.

So a guy who will do what it takes for his company, right or wrong, has a ton of content he could scrape to increase ad revenue and he isn't saying that he won't do that. Is it reasonable or not to then 'be concerned' about ones privacy? You tell me what part of this you disagree with.

"Many companies offer programs that help you to visit websites anonymously. While Megatechtronium will not be able to provide you with a personalized experience if we cannot recognize you, we want you to be aware that these programs are available." (Pownce.com/privacy)

What do you suppose they mean by a 'personalized experience'?

There is nothing in the article 'claiming' that Pownce advertisements use note context - the article fully discloses (check the headline for crying out loud) that there are concerns about privacy, not that user privacy has been compromised.

There is no claim in the article that Pownce scrapes content, but nor does Pownce's privacy policy state that they don't. So you tell me: if it makes them more money, and they haven't said they won't do it, what will they do?

This kind of comment is at least as misleading as a self-professed speculative article it is reponding to.

P.S. Which do you work for - Google or Pownce?

It bugs me that downmodded comments trash karma - political disagreements often get downmodded not because they aren't valid, but because someone disagrees fundamentally. That doesn't seem right.

True true

Certainly doesn't matter as much as we like to think

That's a good one - but upon testing it does produce a lot of domains quickly that are similar, using only a few of the list of keywords in some cases. Still worth my upvote tho.

According to my PR calculator you have PR 1 :/

Good stuff since Google is updating PageRank to the public soon

Be sure to check out the Romlet on the sidebar of the site that is linked to - though that's just one version (the other can be seen in preview format on Romlet.com)