[ebbv]

It does not mean more people writing about the actual issues, it means more people writing about irrelevant details of these people's lives like Edward Snowden's girlfriend's blog. That's the point.

Nobody's saying don't post thoughtful opinion pieces or details about legislation or court cases or anything else actually having to do with the issues.

You can claim that most or all of the posts that have appeared on here are relevant, but they aren't all relevant. That's why this post that we're commenting on exists and has gotten upvoted; the quality of those posts has been abysmal.

And your response is not to argue the point but to basically tell us to shut up. Thanks for contributing.

[gori]

No, my point is that people are upvoting articles they find interesting, which might not be the same things that I find interesting, and I'm ok with this.

I find the personal stuff in a story like this quite interesting, btw.

Of course there's a lot of duplicates and posts with similar information in them, but is that such a big issue? I think people who are flagging posts because they think it's sort of the same as another article is basically abusing the system.

[PavlovsCat]

You can claim that most or all of the posts that have appeared on here are relevant, but they aren't all relevant.

Yeah, but "most" are. See how it works when you leave the sophistry out?

And your response is not to argue the point but to basically tell us to shut up. Thanks for contributing.

Are you kidding? Are you projecting?