You write that the real story here is harder to write than just "finding some old-school left-wingers who think they're being censored by a search engine ranking update." You must have read the entire article because the one I read quoted the director of USRTK as saying, "I can't say this is censorship, because I don't have the faintest …
You write that the real story here is harder to write than just "finding some old-school left-wingers who think they're being censored by a search engine ranking update." You must have read the entire article because the one I read quoted the director of USRTK as saying, "I can't say this is censorship, because I don't have the faintest idea." In other words, your comment was simply a biased rant, not an informed opinion on the subject. You then go on to bash the left generally, revealing the ax you have to grind against them. It's your credibility, not Matt's or the USRTK's that's lacking.
You write that the real story here is harder to write than just "finding some old-school left-wingers who think they're being censored by a search engine ranking update." You must have read the entire article because the one I read quoted the director of USRTK as saying, "I can't say this is censorship, because I don't have the faintest idea." In other words, your comment was simply a biased rant, not an informed opinion on the subject. You then go on to bash the left generally, revealing the ax you have to grind against them. It's your credibility, not Matt's or the USRTK's that's lacking.
I meant to say "must not have read."