I haven't quite figured out how to articulate what's wrong with this kind of thing, but it's somewhat similar to Fox news -- they're not simply useless, they're corrosive.
I'm still trying to think of a better explanation. Disagreement is fine and good, but this kind of thing is something else. The 37signals posts do a good job of presenting an alternate perspective, but in a way that is generally positive and helpful.
How can free speech corrode anything? Is it like when you tell a kid there's no Santa Claus, then you've hurt his innocence with your cynicism?
It sounds like you've got your thumb on a very specific feeling, and I'd be interested to hear about it, but heck if I can figure out where you're going.
I'm a big free speech guy, and I love a good kick in the butt from time to time, so I liked it for that reason. WE always want to judge our position against our critics, right? If not we're just living in a echo-room. But that's just me.
So the question reduces to "How can speech be corrosive?" Corrosive is not a very precise word, but I can guess what Paul means: he means when people are deliberately intellectually dishonest, as for example Fox News seems to be. When someone (a) deliberately misrepresents what an opponent is saying (b) as if he were attacking something that is a hot button for the audience, and then (c) replies with rousing platitudes.
Sorry to make so many jumps, but it wouldn't have occurred to me to use the term in any other way -- obviously I'm not talking about speech one does not have to pay for. Or speech that is unconstrained.
There's a fine difference between honestly describing what you believe to be the other person's views, exaggerating the other person's views in order to show how his/her argument fails at the extremes, and purposely mis-stating the other person's views simply to mock them without giving them a fair chance at explanation.
We do all three of these all of the time in normal arguments, btw.
I just couldn't equate the blog to the TV channel reference. I'm not going to defend Fox News, mainly because I don't think they need defending. I'm unaware of anything that seems "wrong" about them, save for the fact they seem to bug the heck out of more progressive people. But it seemed like two different genres, and two completely different animals.
There's an interesting question in there about blogs in general, and the tendency in media for consumers to prefer people who rant and rave, as I notice many of the later evening cable news entertainment shows doing. (Note the separation of news, news commentary, and news entertainment) I wonder why this type of "corrosive" media attracts so many viewers? Is there a large group of people, for instance, that really want to hear YC misrepresented and trashed? I don't believe that. I believe the article in question only exaggerated a bit to show where the site could be headed. If not, there's nothing stopping us from using his piece for that purpose.
It just always raises my hairs when somebody says something to the effect of "stop that man! He's saying something dangerous!" or the like. I'm just curious. EDIT: Paul did not use the word "dangerous." he only implied that this article was in some different category of bad speech beyond LOLCats.
I support the legal concept because it makes sense both for politics and me personally. Something about how do you know you're wrong unless you listen to those you disagree with? After all, can't be right all of the time. [Insert clever J.S. Mill comment here]
