Why would they do that? Amazon themselves don't really suffer from false positives. (and remember, years ago they accidentally disclosed the editorial reviews' authors: 50% shills or publishers.)
Positive reviews move product. If anything, they have a real incentive to screen or discourage negative reviews.
Cost of living varies wildly in the US, in proportion with population density. I fucking dare you to try living on 12k in a city. (which would largely remove your ability to farm, due to land / space constraints.) without going into the debt trap, that is.
Because regardless of whether these guys are allowed to point it out to the general public, the transit system "is not wearing any pants." If you stop them from pointing that out, it does not magically get pants, but *does* decrease the probability that the MBTA will feel any public pressure to buy it some damn pants.
Slashdot Mirror
Why would they do that? Amazon themselves don't really suffer from false positives. (and remember, years ago they accidentally disclosed the editorial reviews' authors: 50% shills or publishers.)
Positive reviews move product. If anything, they have a real incentive to screen or discourage negative reviews.
but do you have the resources to prove it in court?
Cost of living varies wildly in the US, in proportion with population density. I fucking dare you to try living on 12k in a city. (which would largely remove your ability to farm, due to land / space constraints.) without going into the debt trap, that is.
in b4 Wall Street / CDOs.
Because regardless of whether these guys are allowed to point it out to the general public, the transit system "is not wearing any pants." If you stop them from pointing that out, it does not magically get pants, but *does* decrease the probability that the MBTA will feel any public pressure to buy it some damn pants.
Stallman!