okay, I don't disagree in general, of course, but have a small point: computer users were called that way before Silicon Valley and it had nothing to do with drug dealing. It's not a big deal but little things like that might make an otherwise persuasive article needlessly come off as a sort of deranged hate piece from another camp.

Also, I have exactly zero fucks to give what Silicon Valley folks have to think about it. I don’t work for them and I’m not trying to persuade anyone who might be in a different camp 😀

I'm more concerning about impartial people who would try and read that as an educational piece but get spooked by the harsh rhetoric.

Anyway, I'm not trying to tell you who to write for in any way, just wanted to point that one fact out 😀

There are no impartial people waiting to be swayed only by the most carefully worded argument. It's a classic tone policing trick that you should drop from your repertoire, whether you know why you are using it or not.

I personally look at what people do, and if they use some harsh words in the process, it doesn't matter towards their goal that I can appreciate on its own. Nobody should spend time on people more interested in words than action.

Keep on, Aral.

if you go and read my original toot you'll see that I was correcting a minor factual point, and afterwards explicitly said I wasn't telling the author how to write. So while I happily take your point about there not being impartial people, I'd also appreciate if you won't assume anything about my "repertoire" and my motives and stop telling me what I should do.

It wasn't a factual point and thus you didn't correct it. It was about your worry it "might make an otherwise persuasive article needlessly come off as a sort of deranged hate piece from another camp." which was unfounded at best, malicious at worst.

There, I corrected a minor factual point.