VorJoshigan

I suppose it depends on what you think his point is. I think it’s pretty clear that he is not focused on the size of the article, but rather on the quality of it.

It’s easy to forgive poor quality for very short articles, but for feature pieces like this I don’t think it’s unreasonable to have an opinion regarding the quality. The size is merely the context in which the quality is being discussed.

Let’s break down the Mr. tomica’s rant:
Arguing on the internet
arguing on the internet
Explicit statement that his issue is not with size
Vague criticism of Paul Miller’s writing
Attempt to legitimize vague criticism
Attempt to burn Wired magazine for pretentiousness
Recommendation for where to find “good” long form content.

That simply does not add up to “more than half” of his post being about the size of Paul’s article.

Speak for yourself. The internet has not devolved my interpersonal communication. If anything, it’s improved it.

You totally ignored his point.

So you’re saying Paul ran away from the internet because it was threatening his faith?

I think religion is a silly superstition, but I give the man more credit than that.

Venn diagrams, how do they work? The title is imprecise, but not inaccurate.

I concur. Straight information is great, but any attempt at absolute objectivity is doomed to failure. We all have opinions, and they all color everything we communicate whether we want them to or not.

My message to Paul and all others attempting non-fiction prose like this is – You have a goddamn opinion! Use it! If you can’t convince me that YOU’RE interested in what you’re writing about, then I’M going to be much less interested in it.

You’re saying Paul Miller is a technophobe? pshaw! He’s a hardcore technophile undergoing ritualistic privation.

I got as far as “the internet has nothing to do with being separate.”

Are you kidding me?! There has been an immense amount written about how the internet allows us to associate only with others just like us if we so choose. The scholars have even made up a bullshit term for it – epistemic closure. (OK that’s not true, epistemic closure existed before the internet, but that made for some great hyperbole)

I agree that the trading is an interesting story, but I wish they’d get into the meat of what screwed up instead of just generalizations.

Censorship is always acceptable as long as it is never externally imposed. Every entity should be able to have 100% control over what they choose to share with the world.