I stopped reading the post because it was extremely opinionated and the author seemed to have a personal axe to grind against his or her subject, making me question the integrity of the information.

Link bait. Way down in the article you finally learn that this occupy leader is suggesting a non-violent militia, or really, protesters.

Well, she did use the language "fodder for the NYPD." She might not be planning to arm the paid protesters, but she does seem to expect them to at last be on the receiving end of violence.

The word she's looking for is: union.

More interesting than the bit about the militia is where she is described as arguing ""poverty was not a political problem but “an engineering problem” and told politicians to “get out of the way.""

Edit: My interest here is in the reference to hacking social issues, even one as monolithic as poverty.

The government should get out of the way so Google and others can happily collude on keeping salaries down and work merrily on other shenanigans (privacy?, lol).

Oh, another Yasha Levine "article" about how evil is Google. Shocking.

Wrong, the article is not about Google, it's about a specific employee.

The word Google is in almost every paragraph, and in the title. And the article links to the author's previous article which is about Google.

And Santa really exists.

My biggest problem is that on her twitter account she suggested forming a "non-violent militia" which is an oxymoron. Also, pando seems to consistently write articles that's main purpose is to stir shit. read: linkbait.

Quoting a writer I definitely like: Power is like a violin, you grab it with the left hand but play it with the right one.

The sad reality about invoking "Google" for click-bait puposes is that it works. Ad hominem attacks and using an imaginary feud to promote your previous posts is a new low.