I'd file a suit against the people who libelous comments, such as asserting that he factually was the bomber, and ask reddit to disclose such information about the posters as they possess as part of disclosure.
The internet does not give you the right to spread untrue statements about people which you were negligent in discovering the truth of before repeating - such as that they committed a specific act of terrorism.
> and ask reddit to disclose such information about the posters as they possess as part of disclosure.
Too bad Reddit will surely be too busy not collecting such information just in case the evil government happens to ask for it, eh? You can never be too cautious about that government, you know.
Funny how this stops being true as soon as it involves people you don't like. (Not accusing you personally. Just tired of "it's okay if they're politicians on the other side!")
> The police and media need to deal with reddit by making better information available faster. Reddit is their competition now and they should recognize it as a disruptive force. Just like Uber, I don't want it regulated away.
Spreading information faster than people could correctly evaluate it is exactly what caused this problem. Doing it more would just end up with more witch hunts.
Your desire to jump to instant conclusions about complex issues is, quite frankly, dangerous and troubling.
No, we should never leap to conclusions or immediately try to solve the case based on the new data coming in the instant it does. There is a reason that police are slow to say things and that they investigate leads before making claims.
So they don't ruin innocent lives more often than they already do - and reddit doesn't have any such care.
> But economically speaking, sound decision, just poorly executed.
I'm not sure it counts as a 'sound decision' if you take a very risky option that hasn't panned out well for competitors in the same market on the premise that if you beat the odds, you'll get a bit more money.
I think EA underestimated the cost of their "always on" DRM, and didn't adequately assess the risk against the payoff - and now have taken a business hit from it.
For example, literally no one I know that I used to play Sim City with for hundreds of hours as a kid purchased this game - precisely because of EAs decisions regarding always on DRM and their history with Spore design. They've effectively driven away over a dozen people in their 20s, perfectly willing to fork over $70-100 on a game they like. (Or $200 or $300 or $1000 on a really good game they like; I'm looking at you table-top guide books, trading card games, and minifigures.)
I consider that exactly the opposite of 'sound decisions'.
tl;dr: You have to assess the risk that you're going to poorly execute your choice to make a 'sound decision'; I'm not sure EA did.
The internet does not give you the right to spread untrue statements about people which you were negligent in discovering the truth of before repeating - such as that they committed a specific act of terrorism.