Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Saturday May 23 2015, @06:06PM   Printer-friendly
from the mea-culpa dept.

Janrinok writes:

Apology To Microsoft

On Friday, we published a story, submitted by sigma, alleging that Microsoft had attempted to blackmail the UK Government in order to prevent the adoption of UK policy supporting open document standards. Having looked more closely at the linked material provided, the word blackmail is not used but appears only in the submission that we received. As the editor of that particular story I am personally responsible for not having checked the sources sufficiently well and for subsequently releasing the story. I wish to apologise, publicly and unreservedly, for any suggestion that Microsoft attempted to blackmail the UK government. They did not, nor does the accusation stand up to any scrutiny. We have edited the title to prevent any further misunderstanding by our community or others and I hope that this action and my apology to Microsoft is sufficient to atone for my mistake.

Apology to sigma

The editor's role includes that of trying to look at each story from both sides to provide a balanced approach. We are not here to support one particular view in preference to another but to provide material that will inspire discussion between members of our community. I published the story that sigma submitted, but attempted to balance it with the alternative view that suggested it was not specifically a Microsoft trait to defend one's business and that it could be argued that they were also attempting to protect their British workforce. However, I did not make it clear where sigma's comments ended and where my editing began, although I did add an Editor's Comment explaining that the story had been edited and that not all comments were those of the submitter. sigma has, quite justifiably, objected to this action and I must, therefore, apologise to him personally. I do apologise to sigma, again publicly and unreservedly, for any changes that I made to the submission that he feels reflect badly upon him.

Our Role

This was most certainly not my best piece of work and, of course, I must also apologise to the community. The editors do, however, have to edit stories; members of the community should not expect their submissions to be a platform for their personal views. Some stories require more editing than others to be suitable for the front page. In this instance, I made a mistake. We will always try to find a balanced approach to any story that needs it, as described in the Editing Process.

As I have already said, I take full responsibility for the stories that I release, including the one arising from sigma's submission. We value each and every submission, even those that do not make it to publication however, we do ask that submitters do not suggest events or actions that are not backed up by the source material, or are not easily verifiable by other means.

janrinok
Editor

Related Stories

Microsoft Threatened the UK Over Open Standards 40 comments

When the UK government announced plans to shift to the .odf Open Document Format, and away from Microsoft's proprietary .doc and .docx formats, Microsoft threatened to move its research facilities out of the UK.

The prime minister's director of strategy at the time, Steve Hilton, said that "Microsoft phoned Conservative MPs with Microsoft R&D facilities in their constituencies and said we will close them down in your constituencies if this goes through" "We just resisted. You have to be brave," Hilton said.


Although I am not a great lover of Microsoft, I'm not sure that this is any different than many other companies who will try to protect their profits - and, arguably, the jobs of their employees - when they can see the potential for the loss of business. But perhaps other companies are a little more subtle - especially when it is obvious that official papers will one day become public knowledge.

[Editor's Comment: This submission has been significantly edited - comment is not attributable to sigma]

[Editor's Comment: Please see public apology regarding this story.]

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by tynin on Saturday May 23 2015, @06:11PM

    by tynin (2013) on Saturday May 23 2015, @06:11PM (#186913) Journal

    But how did this come to light? MS lawyers called? Some studious fact checker reach out to you?

    • (Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 23 2015, @06:14PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 23 2015, @06:14PM (#186914)

      Dice Lawyers called.

      • (Score: 2, Informative) by Jeremiah Cornelius on Saturday May 23 2015, @06:24PM

        by Jeremiah Cornelius (2785) on Saturday May 23 2015, @06:24PM (#186919) Journal

        Microsoft is Satan's arsehole.

        Their lawyer's give their own mothers the clap.

        --
        You're betting on the pantomime horse...
      • (Score: 4, Insightful) by sigma on Sunday May 24 2015, @03:01AM

        by sigma (1225) on Sunday May 24 2015, @03:01AM (#187064)

        Nobody's lawyers called, but SN editors are concerned that they may do, and that SN does not have the resources to respond to them. Personally, I stand by my characterisation of Microsoft's behavior as blackmail [wikipedia.org].

        Janrinok's "apology" has also confirmed that this is not a site I should be contributing to, or a community I should be part of.

        Many thanks to the other contributors here for the informative and often entertaining postings I've enjoyed over the past months. Best of luck for the future.

        • (Score: 3, Informative) by sigma on Sunday May 24 2015, @04:25AM

          by sigma (1225) on Sunday May 24 2015, @04:25AM (#187073)

          Sigma again.

          I posted above in some haste, and realise it's probably not the most helpful comment, as well as being unfair to Janrinok, so I'd like to clarify before finding somewhere else to haunt.

          Firstly, I don't object to the editors changing content to protect SN from legal consequences. That's a necessary and important role for them, but the original edit by Janrinok was NOT to resolve the legally questionable "Blackmail" term I used in the submission title. It was an added comment to suggest that Microsoft was using its extortion tactic to protect profit and jobs, and that doing so was normal and acceptable.

          For nearly thirty years Microsoft has been using similar tactics to block the adoption of the open formats, standards and protocols that would be of immense benefit to the world. Time and time again they have coerced governments and state organisations to act against their own best interests. To pretend that it's somehow normal or acceptable, or that it's in any way flamebait to deride them for doing so is nonsense. We need more anger and opposition to the actions of Microsoft and others like them, not to normalise their behavior with apologist comments like:

          Although I am not a great lover of Microsoft, I'm not sure that this is any different than many other companies who will try to protect their profits - and, arguably, the jobs of their employees - when they can see the potential for the loss of business. But perhaps other companies are a little more subtle - especially when it is obvious that official papers will one day become public knowledge.

          I'd also like to clarify that it's not the specifics of Janrinok's apology that made it obvious that I don't belong here. When comments like "Oh, please post that story so we can bitchslap help set him straight." are at +5 insightful, it shows that it's my views that are out of place here, not Janrinok's.

          So good luck to you all, I'm off to find somewhere that'll welcome an aging leftwing hippy nerd freetard and his Fossie foolishness. Take care guys!

          • (Score: 3, Interesting) by janrinok on Sunday May 24 2015, @06:41AM

            by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Sunday May 24 2015, @06:41AM (#187094) Journal

            I would be sorry to see you go, and I rather hope that you will reconsider your decision.

            Whatever you decide however, I hope that we can continue with no ill-feeling towards each other. I don't believe for one minute that any of this was at a personal level. Good luck, and if you do leave SN I hope that you find a 'home' elsewhere on the 'net.

          • (Score: 2) by DNied on Sunday May 24 2015, @12:59PM

            by DNied (3409) on Sunday May 24 2015, @12:59PM (#187157)

            somewhere that'll welcome an aging leftwing hippy nerd freetard and his Fossie foolishness.

            You've basically described comp.misc and probably lots of other newsgroups on Usenet. Get a good newsreader and a free server [albasani.net]. See you there.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 24 2015, @01:12PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 24 2015, @01:12PM (#187158)

            So good luck to you all, I'm off to find somewhere that'll welcome an aging leftwing hippy nerd freetard and his Fossie foolishness. Take care guys!

            We welcome all views here, because we don't want this place to become an echo chamber. We need leftwing hippy freetards like you here to counterbalance rightwing fascist corprotards like jmorris, khallow, The Mighty Buzzard, frojack, etc.

          • (Score: 2, Insightful) by McD on Sunday May 24 2015, @05:47PM

            by McD (540) Subscriber Badge on Sunday May 24 2015, @05:47PM (#187213)

            I think a neutral POV is a good thing.

            Bias is inevitable, in everything from story selection to what sources we link to - but if the summary verbiage is blatantly partisan in one way or another on any given issue, it tarnishes the credibility of the site and the discussion.

            But as we're seeing in this discussion, people put a great deal of care and effort into crafting their submissions. When you edit that, most especially if you add verbiage or change tones or intention, you risk changing the community's perception of the submitter, who them self is often a community member! People are less likely to submit stories if they think they risk being misrepresented by the editorial process.

            So yeah, let's try to stay neutral in story submissions. If a submission isn't neutral enough, kick it back. Don't put an editor's words into a submitter's mouth - at the very least, identify the speaker whenever possible.

            This story has diverted onto the role of editing, but back on the parent-topic-at-hand - what MS did to the UK - I agree with Sigma. I don't have a problem with calling out the bad behavior of any company.

            Lastly, Sigma writes:

            I'm off to find somewhere that'll welcome an aging leftwing hippy nerd freetard and his Fossie foolishness.

            I hope not. Our tribe ought to feel at home here. :-)

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 25 2015, @05:40PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 25 2015, @05:40PM (#187663)

            it shows that it's my views that are out of place here

            Citation needed. /sarcasm
            Most of your 24 most recent posts are positively moderated, with a total of +26 (a little more than +1 mod point per post).

            I disagree that you are out of place here. Even if you were, then that means that you are even more valuable part of our community.
            Please reconsider leaving.

    • (Score: 3, Informative) by n1 on Saturday May 23 2015, @06:17PM

      by n1 (993) on Saturday May 23 2015, @06:17PM (#186918) Journal

      sigma made note of it in the comments of the story in question, and subsequently made a submission about our editorial practices.

      His submission on the subject can be viewed here: https://soylentnews.org/submit.pl?op=viewsub&subid=7478&title=Are+Soylent+News+Editors+Overstepping+the+Mark%3F [soylentnews.org]

      • (Score: 5, Insightful) by frojack on Saturday May 23 2015, @08:32PM

        by frojack (1554) on Saturday May 23 2015, @08:32PM (#186961) Journal

        Quote sigma's unpublished complaint:

        "I think soylent editors should adhere to a policy of not putting words in the submitter's mouth".
        ...
        The stories we submit are a reflection of our enthusiasms and beliefs, the tone and character of those posts is as much part of the submitter's story as the actual content

        Oh, please post that story so we can bitchslap help set him straight.

        Our submissions should be factual, should not change the original either in Slant or in Content. I find it revealing that sigma to wants prevent editors from "putting words in the submitter's mouth, but seems to reserve to himself the right to put words into the "mouth" of articles he cites.

        --
        No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
        • (Score: 5, Insightful) by vux984 on Saturday May 23 2015, @10:18PM

          by vux984 (5045) on Saturday May 23 2015, @10:18PM (#186983)

          Agreed. I'd go even further. Story summaries should ideally be neutral. I don't come here for clickbait. Save the editorializing and hyperbole for the comments.

          • (Score: 1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 23 2015, @11:12PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 23 2015, @11:12PM (#186991)

            Things were good at first here. But ever since the Michael Brown incident, and the subsequent reporting of it here, I've found the quality of the stories to have gone downhill. I focus on that particular incident, because it's one where it was clear from the very beginning that the reporting here was pathetically bad. The submissions here painted it as a situation involving police brutality, when the obvious reality was that Michael Brown had just robbed a shop, violently attacked the cashier, tried to take a police officer's gun, and then charged at that officer in yet another violent physical attack. I mean, we had very clear footage of Brown attacking the cashier just minutes before he was shot, yet people here still proclaimed his innocence, and tore the police officer a new one just because this officer sensibly engaged in totally reasonable and justifiable self defense. The only one engaging in brutality was Michael Brown. Despite how obvious this situation was from the very beginning, the reporting here was just flat out awful. By setting the bar so low, it allowed other submissions with awful reporting to end up on the front page, eventually leading to incidents like this one.

            • (Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 24 2015, @06:07AM

              by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 24 2015, @06:07AM (#187087)
              The video showed Brown paying in cash. Whatever happened with the altercation the store employee decided not to call the cops over it. It was one of the patrons in the store that did. Fox News has a discussion forum, maybe you'd be happier there.
              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 24 2015, @12:10PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 24 2015, @12:10PM (#187144)

                The "video" playing in your head is not actually a video of what actually happened.

                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 24 2015, @05:08PM

                  by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 24 2015, @05:08PM (#187198)
                  The video you saw was released by the Ferguson PD and it was conveniently edited down to just a short clip.
            • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 24 2015, @06:23AM

              by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 24 2015, @06:23AM (#187090)
              To those of you just tuning in: Back when the Michael Brown story first broke on SN the above AC was correctly labeled as a bigot. Basically his position was that the victim deserved death and his evidence was that he has seen too many movies in the 90's. This individual never disputed the details provided in the various stories that SN posted, for example he never said "This is untrue, here's why", he just stuck to his guns based on 10 seconds of video that took place not even immediately before the shooting. He has had a chip on his shoulder ever since. To this day he doesn't understand why the Grand Jury's lack of indictment of Officer Wilson hasn't exonerated him. So what does he do? He brings it up every chance he can get so he can bait the people that have butt-hurt him into an argument. He has actually made a list of specific people he's upset at, I'm surprised we haven't seen it lately. I'm sure it's sitting in a text file somewhere on his hard-drive right now. Maybe one day he'll finally get that argument he wants and find a way to declare victory. In the mean time we can expect this to keep reoccurring.

              "We were wrong about Microsoft!" "I was mistreated in a discussion about Michael Brown!"
          • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Marand on Sunday May 24 2015, @12:19AM

            by Marand (1081) on Sunday May 24 2015, @12:19AM (#187021) Journal

            Agreed. I'd go even further. Story summaries should ideally be neutral. I don't come here for clickbait. Save the editorializing and hyperbole for the comments.

            I've been saying the same thing for a while. Nobody is perfect, but summaries should be as neutral as possible. The opinionated crap should show up in comments where it's subject to the same moderation rules as everyone else. If it takes massive editing to make that happen, then maybe the submission should just be rejected with some kind of "Re-submit with neutral POV, please" notice to the submitter.

            Summaries are not a soap box where you can talk shit without fear of downmods. If you want that, make a journal entry or get your own blog.

        • (Score: 3, Interesting) by TheRaven on Sunday May 24 2015, @01:36AM

          by TheRaven (270) on Sunday May 24 2015, @01:36AM (#187037) Journal
          It's not the same thing. Anything submitted is posted with a banner that starts 'Submitter writes...'. It's therefore assumed that anything that follows, unless it's an explicit quote, is from the submitter. It would be equally bad if the submitter then said 'Some article says...' followed by something not in the article (and I'd hope that the editors do check that the articles actually say what is claimed and that quotes come from the article). It's completely fine for a submitter to say 'Look, here is an article that says something stupid, let's mock it' because their name is attached to this and the article's authors have their names attached to their opinions and we can see which one really looks sensible after reading both.
          --
          sudo mod me up
          • (Score: 2) by vux984 on Sunday May 24 2015, @03:40AM

            by vux984 (5045) on Sunday May 24 2015, @03:40AM (#187066)

            Anything submitted is posted with a banner that starts 'Submitter writes...'. It's therefore assumed that anything that follows, unless it's an explicit quote, is from the submitter.

            Yes, its the submitters -summary-. The presumption then is that it's an accurate summary of what the article authors said.

            It's completely fine for a submitter to say 'Look, here is an article that says something stupid, let's mock it' because their name is attached to this and the article's authors have their names attached to their opinions and we can see which one really looks sensible after reading both.

            Not if the commenters presume the summary is in fact a summary of the article and therefore don't read the article. (What? Not read the article? Sure nobody does that!)

            I hear what you are saying but we need a summary of the article BEFORE we start tearing it apart. Maybe submissions should be in two parts... a summary, and the submitters response.

        • (Score: 2) by Reziac on Sunday May 24 2015, @04:23AM

          by Reziac (2489) on Sunday May 24 2015, @04:23AM (#187070) Homepage

          Good point.

          tl;dr: "We fucked up; sorry; fixed."

          Speaking as a reader/commenter -- apology accepted. And it takes some balls to admit a screwup given the community's not-always-friendly elements.

          --
          And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
  • (Score: 2) by n1 on Saturday May 23 2015, @06:15PM

    by n1 (993) on Saturday May 23 2015, @06:15PM (#186915) Journal

    The story in question, I was the second editor and should have at least spotted the misuse of the term 'blackmail' and found something more appropriate.

    We both made some mistakes on this one, we make every effort to be as impartial as humanly possible but sometimes we get it wrong.

    My sincere apologies for the confusion and generally dropping the ball on this one.

    • (Score: 4, Insightful) by opinionated_science on Saturday May 23 2015, @06:55PM

      by opinionated_science (4031) on Saturday May 23 2015, @06:55PM (#186928)

      thesaurus? Google the UK show "Have I got news for you", the word is "allegedly"....

      • (Score: 2) by n1 on Saturday May 23 2015, @07:05PM

        by n1 (993) on Saturday May 23 2015, @07:05PM (#186931) Journal

        As someone residing in Britain for most of my life, I am very aware of HIGNFY and actually caught up on the latest episodes last night!

        • (Score: 2, Funny) by wantkitteh on Saturday May 23 2015, @09:06PM

          by wantkitteh (3362) on Saturday May 23 2015, @09:06PM (#186968) Homepage Journal

          Could we use a tub of lard as an editor?

          • (Score: 2) by wantkitteh on Monday May 25 2015, @09:44AM

            by wantkitteh (3362) on Monday May 25 2015, @09:44AM (#187562) Homepage Journal

            Obviously someone doesn't know of the infamous incident when Paul Merton's guest didn't show up and had to be replaced; no person could be found at such short notice to fill the seat, so they didn't use a person. At the end of the show, Ian Hislop commented that he couldn't beat Paul even when his partner was a tub of lard.

        • (Score: 2) by opinionated_science on Saturday May 23 2015, @11:07PM

          by opinionated_science (4031) on Saturday May 23 2015, @11:07PM (#186989)

          wait for "Have I got more...." a few days later...

  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Appalbarry on Saturday May 23 2015, @06:15PM

    by Appalbarry (66) on Saturday May 23 2015, @06:15PM (#186916) Journal

    Wowza! Does this mean that we've received our first real lawyer's letter! I am so proud!

    Seriously, this does suggest that our little web site is getting attention from some serious places.

    And Janrinok - many, many upvotes for a proper and non-whiny acknowledgement of an error. It's tough to do, and all too rare these days.

    • (Score: 3, Touché) by janrinok on Saturday May 23 2015, @06:34PM

      by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Saturday May 23 2015, @06:34PM (#186922) Journal

      No, as far as I am aware we have not received any contact from Microsoft, or anyone else other than sigma - and I'm rather hoping that my sincere and genuine apology will prevent one in the near future too.

      However, thanks for your kind words.

      • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Ethanol-fueled on Saturday May 23 2015, @07:28PM

        by Ethanol-fueled (2792) on Saturday May 23 2015, @07:28PM (#186939) Homepage

        Hmm, I think this would have been better-left to a Journal Entry, or perhaps you should have just run sigma's "are editors overstepping their bounds?" story and posted an apology there (as well as getting the pulse of the community in watching that discussion).

        It's for those reasons that I think sigma's meta submission should be run no matter what.

        And let's not bullshit ourselves here -- inflammatory submissions get more attention. We are totally fucking righteous and want to drive people to action fighting the evils of corporate injustice. I have noticed subtle and unnecessary changes to some of my own submissions that made them more inflammatory and those changes actually made me chuckle in their subtlety.

        • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Hairyfeet on Saturday May 23 2015, @11:30PM

          by Hairyfeet (75) <{bassbeast1968} {at} {gmail.com}> on Saturday May 23 2015, @11:30PM (#186997) Journal

          Yeah but one of the purposes of this site was to be the "anti-slash" which means this site needs to NOT be cranking out flamewar inspiring TFAs, avoiding the political bullshit, and basically looking at how DICE is running Slashdot as the way NOT to run this place!

          --
          ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 24 2015, @12:13AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 24 2015, @12:13AM (#187017)

            If this site isn't supposed to be like Slashdot, then why is it so much like Slashdot?

            It looks almost the same (shit, it even uses the same software that used to power Slashdot).

            The story quality is just about as bad here as it is there.

            Hugh Pickens submissions are pretty much guaranteed to end up on the front page of both sites, at almost exactly the same time.

            The moderation here is just as bad as it is at Slashdot.

            I even see many of the same registered users here that I see there.

            Most of the time I don't even bother trying to tell if I'm using Slashdot or if I'm using SoylentNews.

            They're basically the same site as far as I'm concerned.

      • (Score: 2) by canopic jug on Sunday May 24 2015, @06:40AM

        by canopic jug (3949) Subscriber Badge on Sunday May 24 2015, @06:40AM (#187093) Journal

        The correct word would have been "extortion". Or if you needed to cage it, "apparent extortion" or "alleged extortion". Because what ended up being written was, what sigma pointed out to be "apologist twaddle [soylentnews.org]". I'm sure that everyone tries to avoid twaddle in general. And there are enough M$ apologists floating around, paid and unpaid, on other sites that it's not needed here.

        --
        Money is not free speech. Elections should not be auctions.
        • (Score: 3, Informative) by janrinok on Sunday May 24 2015, @07:16AM

          by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Sunday May 24 2015, @07:16AM (#187103) Journal

          I put great value in honesty - what was published was incorrect and unnecessarily inflammatory. My apology was necessary because of that, and that alone. Some may think it unfortunate that it had to happen with a company such as Microsoft but, as I have mentioned elsewhere, it is not SN's role to support one particular view over another. As an editor, I should try to leave my personal opinions out of the editing task which includes when making apologies for the mistake I made.

          The role of the editor is to present neutral and balanced stories for community discussion. My attempts at providing an alternative viewpoint, although badly executed, were intended to redress the bias of the original submission and to provoke an exchange of views. They have certainly been successful, but not in the way I had intended.

          • (Score: 1) by canopic jug on Sunday May 24 2015, @08:57AM

            by canopic jug (3949) Subscriber Badge on Sunday May 24 2015, @08:57AM (#187117) Journal

            Don't worry. In the larger picture it might not be a big deal, but only if the future "balance" is not faked. The editing here has been mostly quite good. However, the word you were both probably looking for was "extortion" It's not a new activity for M$. In any given situation there it often very little which can paint M$ and its minions in a good light. That's not lack of "balance" that's simply reality. Additionally, going for fake "balance" is a documented tactic. The best documentation on that is buried somewhere in Comes vs Microsoft [groklaw.net] exhibits. There was one (of several) that had a clear description of injecting M$ content into situations where it did not belong, but since I can't find it at the moment, it may as well not exists. A less useful one is Exhibit 2456 [groklaw.net] from that case where several Macintosh conferences were intentionally killed. We see that happening now with Linuxfest Northwest and maybe here with this site. But I hope not.

            What it almost comes down to is a he said, she said situation where UK claims extortion and M$ claims no comment. However, M$ has a long history of such behavior [groklaw.net] that continues unabated.

            --
            Money is not free speech. Elections should not be auctions.
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 23 2015, @06:15PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 23 2015, @06:15PM (#186917)

    Yes, the word "blackmail" was harsh, and it probably should've been edited out. But that type of usage would be routine in an opinion piece.

    Besides, MSFT are big boys (gender bias intentional) and I doubt the SN piece had much affect on their market cap.

    I think an apology called out as a separate piece should be reserved for matters where SN really, really blew it, not cases of borderline judgement.

    • (Score: 3, Informative) by Tork on Saturday May 23 2015, @08:09PM

      by Tork (3914) Subscriber Badge on Saturday May 23 2015, @08:09PM (#186949)

      I think an apology called out as a separate piece should be reserved for matters where SN really, really blew it, not cases of borderline judgement.

      They did blow it, it isn't excused by having deep pockets.

      --
      🏳️‍🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️‍🌈
      • (Score: 1, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 23 2015, @11:40PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 23 2015, @11:40PM (#187002)

        Your post is a muddled mess.
        You seem to be saying S/N has deep pockets.
        Use of pronouns requires precision.

        .
        As noted by Appalbarry further down in the thread, this episode DID happen.
        Redmond did make the threat.
        That anyone doubts that is evidence of fanboyism.
        What is past is prologue.

        While a slightly-incorrect word was used in the previous submission, the direction of the criticism by sigma was accurate.
        Soylentils with a better (mental?) thesaurus have noted that the correct word is "extortion".

        M$ is NOT due an apology for once again being M$.
        The story of The Frog and the Scorpion applies yet again.
        The snake will always bite the tender woman.
        A leopard cannot change its spots.

        MSFT is a serial criminal offender.
        One should always be offended by the repeated shady moves they make--but should never be surprised.

        -- gewg_

        • (Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 23 2015, @11:54PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 23 2015, @11:54PM (#187010)

          Are you the AC who's always hating on Tork?

        • (Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 24 2015, @12:05AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 24 2015, @12:05AM (#187014)

          M$

          For a very brief moment, I thought it was 1998 again, and I was on Slashdot before it became shitty.

          • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 24 2015, @01:48AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 24 2015, @01:48AM (#187046)

            That's all you've got??

            It sounds like you're claiming that M$ -has- cleaned up its act and is no longer a win-at-any-cost operation worthy of the moniker.
            M$ still up to its old dirty tricks [techrights.org]
            ...and, of course, there's the topic of this page.

            -- gewg_

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 24 2015, @01:56AM

              by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 24 2015, @01:56AM (#187050)

              Can you provide a link to a reputable source? Maybe Pravda?

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 24 2015, @12:15AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 24 2015, @12:15AM (#187018)

          All I see out of you is anger. It can't be healthy for somebody to constantly be so angry.

          • (Score: 2) by isostatic on Sunday May 24 2015, @09:36AM

            by isostatic (365) on Sunday May 24 2015, @09:36AM (#187125) Journal

            All I see out of you is anger. It can't be healthy for somebody to constantly be so angry.

            Even Bruce Banner?

        • (Score: 2) by Marand on Sunday May 24 2015, @01:16AM

          by Marand (1081) on Sunday May 24 2015, @01:16AM (#187032) Journal

          A leopard cannot change its spots.

          Is that why you still can't seem to type "Microsoft" in full?

          Most of us grew up and realised that the silly euphemisms aren't nearly as clever or edgy as we thought they were when we were kids, and that criticism can be more eloquently stated by not resorting to the petty weapons of childhood.

          • (Score: 0, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 24 2015, @01:29AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 24 2015, @01:29AM (#187035)

            Why would I type 9 characters when 2 will do.
            Everyone recognizes the short form (because it represents truth).

            Will I give an unrepentant convicted criminal organization a break?
            Don't hold your breath.

            -- gewg_

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 24 2015, @01:43AM

              by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 24 2015, @01:43AM (#187041)

              It's spelled: "Microsoft"

            • (Score: 2) by Marand on Sunday May 24 2015, @02:05AM

              by Marand (1081) on Sunday May 24 2015, @02:05AM (#187054) Journal

              Why would I type 9 characters when 2 will do.
              Everyone recognizes the short form (because it represents truth).

              If you were interested in efficiency you'd be typing MS instead, it's easier to type than M$ or MICROS~1, both forms you use often, so don't try to bullshit me or anybody else with claims of expediency.

              Will I give an unrepentant convicted criminal organization a break?
              Don't hold your breath.

              This is equally bullshit, because I don't see you giving other companies like Intel, Google, or Apple the same treatment for their behaviour, and they're just as bad as Microsoft. Intel has been involved in the same anti-competitive shenanigans as Microsoft; Google lost a privacy-related suit against the FTC and is currently in an antitrust lawsuit in the EU; Apple has its share of antitrust investigations and has been found guilty of price fixing via conspiring with with major publishers. That's not even including the usual tax evasion strategies they all employ, or any other number of companies that have been found guilty of breaking various laws.

              Where's the clever names for the other "convicted criminal organisation"? Just about any large corporation is going to end up a "convicted criminal organisation" eventually because the cost of being caught doesn't outweigh the profits of breaking laws for large businesses (a situation I find detestable). So, skip the self-righteous bullshit, because you've just got a grudge against one specific company.

              The euphemisms just come across childish, because calling a company M$ or crApple or Scroogle isn't biting commentary, nor is it particularly insightful. What you're doing is no better than if everyone started calling you "spewg_" because of your "unrepentant spewing of bullshit"; it's not criticism, it's passive-aggressive wankery.

            • (Score: 3, Touché) by Tork on Sunday May 24 2015, @05:56AM

              by Tork (3914) Subscriber Badge on Sunday May 24 2015, @05:56AM (#187083)

              Why would I type 9 characters when 2 will do.

              Three characters. Shift key counts.

              --
              🏳️‍🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️‍🌈
    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Nerdfest on Saturday May 23 2015, @10:28PM

      by Nerdfest (80) on Saturday May 23 2015, @10:28PM (#186985)

      The word "blackmail" was accurate, although the word "extortion" might have been better. Someone said the the "allegedly" should have been used, but I disagree; I think the only addition worthwhile might be "attempted". Having this posted on the site makes it look like Microsoft are innocent of this accusation ... and they're not.

  • (Score: 2) by Anne Nonymous on Saturday May 23 2015, @06:25PM

    by Anne Nonymous (712) on Saturday May 23 2015, @06:25PM (#186920)

    Good job fixing things up Janrinok! We all make mistakes, and you handled this one with style.

  • (Score: 1) by Refugee from beyond on Saturday May 23 2015, @06:30PM

    by Refugee from beyond (2699) on Saturday May 23 2015, @06:30PM (#186921)

    So, did it happen or not? The only thing that matters.

    --
    Instantly better soylentnews: replace background on article and comment titles with #973131.
    • (Score: 5, Informative) by Appalbarry on Saturday May 23 2015, @06:35PM

      by Appalbarry (66) on Saturday May 23 2015, @06:35PM (#186923) Journal

      Bloomberg says yes. [bloomberg.com] I somehow doubt that they got a lawyer letter. And yeah, I'd characterize it as "blackmail."

      Microsoft Corp. threatened to close its research facilities in Britain if the government went ahead with plans to promote open-source software, one of David Cameron’s former advisers said.

      Steve Hilton, who was the prime minister’s director of strategy until 2012, told an event in London Wednesday that when the Conservative Party proposed shifting government computer systems to open standards, the software giant began intensive lobbying of members of Parliament. Open tools have few restrictions, allowing users to move away from expensive proprietary software contracts.

      “Microsoft phoned Conservative MPs with Microsoft R&D facilities in their constituencies and said we will close them down in your constituencies if this goes through,” Hilton said. “We just resisted. You have to be brave.”

      • (Score: 4, Informative) by CoolHand on Saturday May 23 2015, @06:40PM

        by CoolHand (438) on Saturday May 23 2015, @06:40PM (#186925) Journal
        That quote is a threat, not blackmail. Blackmail is a threat to expose something or make something public to which the one being blackmailed does not which exposed. That something is frequently, but not always, something illegal or immoral. Blackmail is illegal, making threats usually legal (but sometimes not depending on the threat).
        --
        Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job-Douglas Adams
        • (Score: 4, Informative) by sjames on Saturday May 23 2015, @09:09PM

          by sjames (2882) on Saturday May 23 2015, @09:09PM (#186969) Journal

          In common usage, blackmail is often conflated with other forms of extortion. MS's threat was certainly a form of extortion.

          • (Score: 2) by CoolHand on Saturday May 23 2015, @11:07PM

            by CoolHand (438) on Saturday May 23 2015, @11:07PM (#186988) Journal
            Perhaps, but we need to be more worried about the legal usage. So, if it was legally determined that it was not that way, then the term as used here could perhaps be looked at as libelous. Considering, that we have no legal firepower at all, we need to err on the side of caution.
            --
            Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job-Douglas Adams
      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by kaszz on Sunday May 24 2015, @01:00AM

        by kaszz (4211) on Sunday May 24 2015, @01:00AM (#187026) Journal

        The inquirer also states some thing long the same line. Microsoft bullied MPs over government switch to open source standards [theinquirer.net].

        MICROSOFT reportedly threatened to move its research facilities out of the UK if the government went ahead with plans to promote open source standards.

        And Microsoft faces claims it threatened MPs with job cuts in constituencies [theguardian.com].

        Microsoft executives telephoned Conservative MPs threatening to shut down a facility in their local area because of planned IT reforms, David Cameron’s former strategy chief has claimed.

        Ie "Nice research facility we gave you there. Too bad if something would happen to it..". It may not be blackmail in the strict definition of the word. But it's certainly a threat and something I would call "unlawful interference in the processes of a democracy".

        Bad choice of word? perhaps. But it were in the right ballpark.

      • (Score: 2) by TLA on Monday June 01 2015, @08:41PM

        by TLA (5128) on Monday June 01 2015, @08:41PM (#190869) Journal

        that's not blackmail, that's extortion.

        extortion: criminal offense of obtaining money, property, or services from a person, entity, or institution, through coercion.
        coercion: use of force or intimidation to obtain compliance.
        blackmail: Extortion of money or something else of value from a person by the threat of exposing a criminal act or discreditable information.

        source: seven years practising domestic civil and criminal defence Law, and the same amount of time in international human rights Law. You just heard it from a lawyer. Not *your* lawyer, *a* lawyer.

        --
        Excuse me, I think I need to reboot my horse. - NCommander
  • (Score: 4, Informative) by AlHunt on Saturday May 23 2015, @07:01PM

    by AlHunt (2529) on Saturday May 23 2015, @07:01PM (#186929)

    You made what you thought in hindsight was a mistake. You fixed it.

    We all zig when we should have zagged. This place must be a hell of a lot of work to run. Keep up the great work.

  • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 23 2015, @07:09PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 23 2015, @07:09PM (#186932)

    Did you even try to look up the definition of blackmail? It doesn't rely on extorting an end strictly based upon threats of revealing illegal actions.

    Blackmail: To extort money from another by means of intimidation.

    Does threatening to close down plants and fire people count as intimidation? Yes! Wow, it really is blackmail! I didn't actually think I would see SN go /. on me

    • (Score: 3, Informative) by janrinok on Saturday May 23 2015, @07:22PM

      by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Saturday May 23 2015, @07:22PM (#186937) Journal

      I apologised for the use of the word 'blackmail' which was not supported by the linked material. If we receive a lawyers letter, it could very well result in the demise of the site. We have insufficient income to pay our way at present although that might be rectified by the time the bills need to be settled. The additional cost of having to exchange lawyers letters could easily be the straw that breaks the site's back. I did make a mistake, and that alone justifies an apology on my part. I'm also hoping that it will avoid any unnecessary legal costs.

      I'm not sure what you would have preferred that I had done, under these circumstances?

      • (Score: 2) by fritsd on Saturday May 23 2015, @08:16PM

        by fritsd (4586) on Saturday May 23 2015, @08:16PM (#186956) Journal

        I think it was good that you apologised, janrinok, but you must forgive me when I just imagined a scene with John Cleese hanging upside down from a window... [wikipedia.org] ;-)

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 23 2015, @09:19PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 23 2015, @09:19PM (#186971)

        I don't know that I would have you do anything at all.

        Perhaps I don't understand the legal ramifications fully. The headline of the Bloomberg story is literally "Microsoft Threatened to Close U.K. Plants, Ex-Cameron Aide Says." The former aide basically says Microsoft representatives called certain MPs and told them they would close facilities and move jobs if they went ahead with their Open Standards speech.

        I suppose what I am getting at is that one ought to be able to distinguish between the strict legal offense of blackmail (the crime kind) and the act of intimidation or coercion to bring about a particular end, blackmail the verb. Even then, my quick reading of the legal definition in the U.K. does not limit blackmail to extortion of money specifically.

    • (Score: 2) by BK on Saturday May 23 2015, @07:35PM

      by BK (4868) on Saturday May 23 2015, @07:35PM (#186942)

      Blackmail: To extort money from another by means of intimidation.

      To the best of my knowledge, no money changed hands.

      --
      ...but you HAVE heard of me.
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 23 2015, @08:03PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 23 2015, @08:03PM (#186947)

        Money exchanges hands when the government hands over taxpayer money to these greedy companies in exchange for proprietary user-subjugating software.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 23 2015, @09:31PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 23 2015, @09:31PM (#186975)

          Exaclty. Windows costs money, Office costs money, the infrastructure to support these technologies costs money (Microsoft-certified PCs etc). That's aside from the fact that jobs could be construed as money in this case (jobs also generate tax revenue, which funds the technology purchases).

  • (Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 23 2015, @07:35PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 23 2015, @07:35PM (#186941)

    Until the editors and submitters do so under their real names, none of this matters. Under nicks this is all just pretend journalism.

    • (Score: 4, Funny) by GungnirSniper on Saturday May 23 2015, @07:37PM

      by GungnirSniper (1671) on Saturday May 23 2015, @07:37PM (#186944) Journal
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 23 2015, @11:14PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 23 2015, @11:14PM (#186992)

        How do you know that his real name isn't Anonymous Coward?

        He'd have no choice but to post as AC. He couldn't register that account even if he wanted to.

    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 23 2015, @08:15PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 23 2015, @08:15PM (#186954)

      I've seen the quality of journalism from people who use their real names; it does not improve the quality.

  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by takyon on Sunday May 24 2015, @12:18AM

    by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Sunday May 24 2015, @12:18AM (#187019) Journal

    The headline is not sacred. Expect changes to the headline.

    Original submission:

    Microsoft blackmailed the UK over open standards.

    sigma writes:

    When the UK government announced plans to shift to the .odf Open Document Format, and away from Microsoft's proprietary .doc and .docx formats, Microsoft threatened to move its research facilities out of the UK.

        The prime minister's director of strategy at the time, Steve Hilton, said that "Microsoft phoned Conservative MPs with Microsoft R&D facilities in their constituencies and said we will close them down in your constituencies if this goes through" "We just resisted. You have to be brave," Hilton said.

    http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/2409808/microsoft-bullied-mps-over-government-switch-to-open-source-standards [theinquirer.net]

    Needs a blockquote or at least quotation marks around the copied content.

    janrinok's comment could have been prefaced with "janrinok: " or included in the comments instead.

    It's an open question whether "blackmail" was inaccurate. Our headlines, our interpretations.

    --
    [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
  • (Score: 0, Troll) by Techwolf on Sunday May 24 2015, @02:53AM

    by Techwolf (87) on Sunday May 24 2015, @02:53AM (#187063)

    This is what you get when you accept the crap from that gweg character.

    • (Score: 2) by isostatic on Sunday May 24 2015, @09:27AM

      by isostatic (365) on Sunday May 24 2015, @09:27AM (#187123) Journal

      Are you implying the crap that Hugh Pickens, Gews, etc post on here drives others to imitate it?

  • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 24 2015, @11:11AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 24 2015, @11:11AM (#187142)

    members of the community should not expect their submissions to be a platform for their personal views

    Pretty much every submission by _gewg is embellished with (and sometimes entirely) his personal views. I can remember a few months back he referred to a nuclear power station in the title of a published submission as a "nuke factory". The editors should try to neutralize submissions, even if there's little chance of receiving a letter from a lawyer. I can gather most users of this site largely agree with _gewg's views, but personal views should be left to the comments, not splitting at the seams in the summary.

    • (Score: 2) by janrinok on Sunday May 24 2015, @12:36PM

      by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Sunday May 24 2015, @12:36PM (#187151) Journal

      There are several examples I could chose, but perhaps you missed this?: Marijuana - Both Sides of the Story [soylentnews.org]

      Different editors have different ways of achieving the same ends. I researched _gewg's submission, and then found a counter viewpoint, which I submitted in the same story. _gewg does not get a free pass. However, an individual's political views are their own. We do not support any particular side of the political spectrum and, as I have pointed out in posts elsewhere, both US parties look right wing to European eyes, and to many _gewg is not particularly to the left. The aim of the site is to discuss the story, not the submitter's politics. Submitters will often reflect their own beliefs in their submission.

      That is not the same as the subject under discussion here. The allegation in the title that was submitted did not arise from the source material and, under law, could have been viewed as a serious matter. We cannot act as a legal umbrella for anyone who wishes to make inflammatory and unsubstantiated accusations. While I do not think that what happened was intentional, I do have to consider how it might be viewed by someone else. I therefore acted accordingly. Whether I was correct to do so depends on your own point of view. But, hopefully, any serious potential consequences have been avoided.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 25 2015, @12:15AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 25 2015, @12:15AM (#187421)

      "nuke factory"

      Making up stuff and putting quotation marks around it makes you a liar.

      most users of this site largely agree with _gewg's views

      ...yet you think that your minority view should be saluted and that censorship should be practiced here.

      ...and it's not just Soylentils who think the way I do.
      The vast majority of the planet's population agrees with my positions.
      Now, there's not a majority yet on Marxism, but more and more people every day recognize that the great wealth disparity that accompanies Capitalism is unfair, unnecessary, and anti-democratic.

      Supermajorities of USAians agree with me (and with Bernie Sanders). [firedoglake.com]

      ...and since gewg_ did not initiate this story nor the story that spawned it, you are simply offtopic, prejudiced, and demanding that your views be substituted for everyone else's.
      How long does it take you to polish those jackboots?

      -- gewg_

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 26 2015, @07:34PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 26 2015, @07:34PM (#188217)

        you are simply offtopic, prejudiced, and demanding that your views be substituted for everyone else's

        Wonderful how you can turn things around, isn't it?

        "nuke factory"

        Making up stuff and putting quotation marks around it makes you a liar.

        I misremembered it, you called it a "nuke plant"
        http://soylentnews.org/article.pl?sid=14/12/31/1649245 [soylentnews.org]
        hardly much better.

        *ramblings about Marxism and the evils of reality*

        How long does it take you to polish those jackboots?

        If your manner of persuading people is by giving them your own far-out interpretation and passing it off as fact, then you're the authoritarian. Most people don't RTFA, or look around for other sources.
        I'm pretty sure you'd be the first one to whine if someone submitted a summary with a bias with a view opposite to yours -- e.g. "uninformed and misguided environmentalists do the coal-mining industry a favor by shutting down another nuclear power station".
        The shit-slinging in summaries related to Microsoft etc can be laughed off, but when the editors post extremely bias summaries on politically-charged topics, without any opposition, that's a problem. This is not Mother Jones -- it's a technology site.

        Authoritarianism moving in on S/N?

        Go take your lithium, dude.

      • (Score: 1) by dboz87 on Wednesday May 27 2015, @06:35PM

        by dboz87 (1285) on Wednesday May 27 2015, @06:35PM (#188718)

        Is it just me or is --gewg_ becoming more unhinged?