Originally Posted by
GUWonder
If people are unhappy with a lawful business -- such as a particular blog -- that thrives on attention, then why give it the attention that fuels its revenue? It doesn't seem to be effective, rational strategy for the critics, hypocritical or otherwise, of a business to fuel the business by giving it ever more attention.
Sure, that's one theory of economics- called the invisible hand. If one simply ignores and stays silent about businesses that have troubling practices, market forces will drive those businesses out of business.
I alas am not a Keynesian.
I have yet to see any evidence that bloggers have gotten richer off of mine or other criticism. Indeed, I have seen some slight alterations in practices that, based on timing, appear to be responsive. These blogs don't thrive from the attention on inside baseball posts like these. They thrive off of Rolling Stone articles and the false presentation that they live luxurious lives for free.
I also don't believe that most of the blogs were discussing currently are in compliance with the FTCA.
But you will continue to impugn the motives of people who are critical of blogs, and we will continue to have intelligent logical points about the problematic business practices, thriving off of your attacks. America, man.