[jmcintyre]

No, and never did. I am actually working on NetBeans/PHP/Drupal(gah!) on the other monitor, though I am primarily a C# guy.

And even I did work for MS, how does that invalidate any of my points? If I worked for Microsoft, does that suddenly mean it's okay for ZDNet to claim 25% of all computers being sold are Chromebooks? Interesting that no one is questioning SJVN's ulterior motives, if any! I do believe it's just to garner clicks though, Ed Bott will probably reply with an article debunking this one and ZDNet and its "journalists" will laugh all the way to the bank.

[phaemon]

"No-one"? I don't represent "the whole planet other than jmcintyre", so don't worry about it.

I've found that Microsoft shills won't answer that question directly, which is why I honestly believe you. I wanted to ask you: why is it that you spend time defending a multi-billion dollar corporation, for free, when they actually pay people to do this?

I can understand volunteering time to a community effort like Linux, but I don't understand why you'd exert the same effort for a company that pays people to do the exact same job?

Can you explain your motivations to me?

[NegativeK]

> I wanted to ask you: why is it that you spend time defending a multi-billion dollar corporation, for free, when they actually pay people to do this?

This confuses me. Debates about facts should never be limited to marketing departments versus the world, with everyone who agrees with the corporation sitting by quietly.

[bcbrown]

People who care about accuracy like to correct inaccurate/untruthful statements, perhaps?

[jmcintyre]

It's something like being a devil's advocate, plus being a fan. Spreading mistruths actually hurts things. When people say things like "Windows 8 won't boot without secure boot enabled", it's no longer opinion(like "MS sucks and is dying") but an objective fact that can be checked.

It's not effort expended per se, since it's more like debating merits of phone OSes at the water cooler rather than work. If they're paying people to do it, then they're doing quite a shitty job. I don't feel the need to "defend" other companies, because companies like Apple and Google already have plenty of fans who point out inaccuracies in stories or comments even before I even get a chance to comment.

Imagine an article which erroneously claims Windows Phone has "25% of the phone market" and that "Android is declining". Now imagine the HN comments on it and how karma might be distributed on those comments. Do you really think the equivalent to the following comment which is currently on top would still be on top?

programminggeek> "Microsoft has really fallen these last few years."

Or would it be a comment accusing the author of being a "Microsoft shill" ?

The moderation on here is pretty brutal even when pointing out objective facts, I have seen people get hellbanned by getting downvoted for making comments that people don't want others to see, but are true.

[phaemon]

Ok, that makes sense when it's factual matters. But I have seen people whose entire comments history is comprised of defending a corp, whether that be MS, Apple, Google, or other. And I mean literally all their comments: no jokes, no random asides. Everything is supporting "their" company. I guess they must see it like it's a football team they support.

And there is no "if" on whether MS are doing it (employing paid shills). It's a fact that they are. They may well be doing a shitty job, but they're hired all the same. Of course MS are not the only ones; other companies do exactly the same thing. That's pretty much what "Social Media Consultants" are.

Thanks for the reply!