Read this rebuttle on a public forum on an ad from Purple when someone brought this up:

Purple:
Hi Caitlin, we didn't sue because we has questions, as he asserted. We filed action against Honest Mattress Reviews (HMR), Ryan Monahan & GhostBed for violating the law by spreading false and misleading statements online, including specific statements that GhostBed — a primary competitor of Purple — had previously agreed to remove from its website and various social media platforms. Now, however, those and other false and misleading statements are being made on HMR and Momahan's newly-created mattress-industry-related blog. We have reason to believe Monahan & GhostBed are "in bed together" — some of the connections we've found are here: https://onpurple.com/blog/connections-ryan-monahan-ghostbed.

HMR’s, Monahan’s and GhostBed’s campaign against Purple includes numerous false and misleading statements about Purple and its products and services, including false claims about the safety of Purple’s mattresses, the assumed lack of adequate safety testing for Purple’s products, and Purple’s alleged deception of its customers regarding safety. In fact, many of the statements go so far as to imply that Purple’s mattresses are dangerous and can lead to serious diseases. These statements have been proven to be false and unfounded, and yet, they continue to dishonestly proclaim that Purple's products are unsafe.

The suit is public record and why we sued is clearly spelled out in it, but to clear up what seems to be insinuated — we didn’t sue because he gave us a bad review or because of his 4 safety questions (as he’s asserted). On the contrary, we encourage third-party reviews as an important part of the consumer research process. We are merely protecting our company and intellectual property against a dishonest ”reviewer” with connections to a competitor.

Since every time we discuss the lawsuit publicly evidence of the connection seems to disappear, this is all we can say at this time. Again, the suit is public record and you're welcome to review it yourself.

LOL, East Palo Alto. I volunteered at the Boys and Girls Club there for a year when I lived in Mountain View. Two cops got shot and East Palo Alto had the highest murder rate ever that year. It's utterly insane how on one side of the 101 you have these multi-million dollar mansions and Stanford University and on the other side you have gangland.

Meanwhile, back on topic, when I moved to Mountain View in 2002 my rent was $800 a month for a studio apartment. The rent went up by $100 a year every year until I finally called it quits in 2007 when they wanted to charge me $1300 a month. I gave up ever actually being able to own a home in the Bay Area (let alone rent) and left in 2009.

In Japan now, and things aren't quite as bad as the Bay Area, but we've been house hunting recently and we're shocked at the disparity between what we want versus what we can actually afford, even with both us being full-time professionals. I know that 2nd place he goes to is supposed to be a joke but it's not that far off from the truth, at least as far as our experiences go. While the places we've been shown by the real estate agent are certainly habitable, they aren't particularly nice. So we're going to have to decide whether we want to live someplace not so great with the advantage being the mortgage will be paid off by the time we retire or just rent in a place we're comfortable with and wind up having to really budget hard after retirement since rent will consume a sizable portion of our pensions/social security.

@eric3579
agreed,and i suspect most people struggle with this,but i think he made a really important point that we all need to address,and that is our own bias.

too many people for far too long have sought information that aligns with their own narrative,their own,personal and subjective understandings.we see those who identify as conservative reject anything that does not adhere to their own,narrow worldview,and we see those who identify as progressive do the exact same thing.

and yet if challenged,BOTH will stubbornly declare that their information is solid and without reproach.this is statistically impossible.

another great point he makes is how some people have been conditioned to accept opinion and conflict as somehow being "news".

he also makes a point on how some news outlets have done shoddy and poor work,but we should not throw the baby out with the bath water.while this may be true,i feel he was far too lenient on those who profess to be journalists.he gives them a pass for doing mediocre work,because that is what many journalists do in this new climate of:partisan hackery,access and propaganda.

so when we talk about "mainstream media",we are talking about only a few,monolithic corporations who DO have an agenda,and that agenda is PROFIT.

so we can look back to the run up to the iraq war,and see how phil donahue was fired from MSNBC for being critical of the war.the highest rated show on that network at that time.so if PROFIT is the model,then donahue being fired makes no sense..UNLESS you consider that the owners of MSNBC were general electric,who at that time were heavily invested in military contracts on the dawn of a new war.

so the profit was not from advertising from donahue's show,but rather the billions in defense contracts general electric was poised to receive from the impending iraq war,and donahue's criticisms of that war had the possibility to affect the profits of general electric.

and that is the one point that is missing from mr green's take on the mainstream media:their inability or outright refusal to criticize the current corporate establishment,and how many journalists kneel at the altar of their corporate masters.

so while he makes a lot of great points.that particular glaring omission is disturbing.

speaking only for myself i tend to only consume independent media,and focus on journalists who have earned my trust.

ultimately it is up to us to decide who we trust and who we are suspicious of,and to discuss those important issues among ourselves to better refine our understandings.

The credit card companies get 2-4% of every single purchase made with every single card. They really couldn't give a shit if some pay on time, and others keep a balance. The consumer end of the equation is peanuts. That's why, if you ask, they'll lock your card for a few months and not charge interest while you pay it down.

Recently, they've changed it so they charge 2-4% for refunds as well. So if you buy something for $100, Visa holds onto $3. If you come back and get your money back, Visa holds onto ANOTHER $3. So your favourite store just got reamed for $6, with no actual purchase being final.

Your video, Consume Pepsi, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Meh, I would have had to watch more than 15 seconds of that video to really reply thoughtfully to your comment. Turns out, 15 seconds is all it took to realize the presenter was full of shit.

:-)

I feel no shame for eating cheese. I feel no shame for eating the eggs that my backyard chickens produce. I don't even feel shame when I occasionally have to wring one for getting sick or old...I just don't relish the necessity.
I didn't feel shame when I ate the freezer full of beef from the cow my kids had named. (Man-Eating-Cow, if you're interested)

I do have shame in my life. Any life lived fully and introspectively will include some moments of shame. But none of those moments have anything to do with consuming the food my body needs to survive. Or even the foods I don't need to survive...but really enjoy.

Right. Here are some facts.

The CIA isn't spying on most of us through our TVs right now, though they do have the technology to do it and have developed it specifically for that purpose.

So have countless other entities (government and independent. You can download the tech yourself if you care to, or have the technical ability).

Samsung is spying on you through your Samsung TV's
(http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/fine-print-on-one-of-samsungs-tvs-says-its-recording-your-voice/)

Any consumer products with voice recognition could be considered to be spying on you, such as Google and Amazon "home assistants".

Technically, by now anything with an active microphone has the capability to do this. It should probably be considered worse that it's not the government, but completely unknown third-parties who supply the infrastructure to do this on a massive scale for the purposes of data mining for advertising.

I have personal experience with this technology and the industries that develop and distribute it. This isn't hearsay or conjecture. I will never understand why it's acceptable for unchecked third-party corporations to spy on you, but once the government does it, a slightly larger minority gets upset.

Also, no recording for consumers until VCRs.

Times were different back then!

You forgot they're off of the water supply "grid" (try living off of rainwater - it's not so easy in some places), the daily food supply "grid" (most people would be screwed without this alone), the emergency services "grid" (for some medical conditions he is buggered, nobody is coming any time soon), the consumable resource supply "grid" (i.e. something breaks, buy a new one the same day).

There's probably more I have missed. How many of these things do you live without on a daily basis?

They have abandoned large segments of "civilisation". There isn't some special line in the sand the you choose that makes them living off of the grid or not.

Shit, 99% of us here don't have to hunt for our own dinner. That alone is a huge difference.

Like the average consumer can afford all that crap.

Few points...

We have no options for serious load shifting to utilise all that solar power in the evenings when it would make a difference. And power companies refuse to trust it for baseload power, so they still generate what they estimate they need for base load,and pay for rapid generation to handle spikes. Most electricity generated from home solar in Aus is wasted.

Without battery backups, the best production of the day goes to the energy company for 8 cents, and we buy back power from them (generated by coal of course) at night for 36 cents. Our energy companies aren't going to pay a premium for power they really don't give a crap about.

Most panels in Aus face north/east, to generate the largest amount of energy. When most people aren't home to use it. Instead, panels should face north/west to generate the most power in the afternoon when we come home from work/fire up air conditioners/start cooking etc. And even then, the power than is generated is but a fraction of what is consumed during peak periods due to the setting sun.

Annnnd most people in Australia do not even check their systems to see if they're still doing anything... It's estimated 14% of all home solar systems are currently non-functional due to faulty panels, inverter or both.

Until the point in time comes when energy companies can create a way to load shift solar production to ensure continuity of power, or household power storage units pricing comes down enough to be viable, non industrial solar in Australia is mostly feel good propaganda.

And while a number of coal plants have closed recently, it's not due to lack of demand as solar take up reduces requirement for coal fired power... It's because the plants are not viable any more to run and owners do not want to run at a loss. Each one that closes represents a significant portion of our overall generation being lost, with no core plan for continuity (wind and solar are not being considered as a core strategy currently).

I'm all for saving the planet, but the science/facts on solar outweigh the feel goods. Perhaps instead of patting ourselves on the back, we should be thinking about a better plan.

@Fairbs

i think it would go much farther than impeachment don't you think?
if there is actual,tangible evidence,and not mere speculation,that putin directed russian intelligence to hack the election,this would be:
1.an act of war
2.the election of trump would be illegitimate,and therefore the entire process would have to be a giant "do-over".this has never happened in american history,so to handle it the same way as if a standing president dies,or resigns (nixon),or use the standards of impeachment,in my opinion,should not apply.

if our election was truly manipulated to favor trump,this would be unprecedented,and there simply is no system in place to deal with such a breach.

and let's be honest.
a "do-over" might be time consuming,and bring some delays legislatively speaking.

but considering that this election cycle has been a stroll down surreal lane and we were subjected to not one,but TWO shit candidates.

i wouldn't mind a do-over.
how about you?

It would be interesting to know what regions of the U.S. consume these odd food items I've not heard of before. Where is the PB&M sandwich popular?

@newtboy
you misunderstood.

respectable investigative journalists gain that respect by being consistent with their reporting.

chris hedges is such a journalist.

but,by your metric,him being on RT negates that respect.now this is an assumption on my part,but i am using your words to come to that assumed conclusion.you have yet to agree or disagree with what chris hedges is saying,choosing instead to attack the medium in which he is saying it.this is your right,i just happen to disagree with you on this matter.

i refer back to one of my original comments,and a point i tried (and i guess failed?) to reiterate:discernment is the key.

so in a sense..yes..it is our responsibility to do our due diligence to vette the veracity of an investigative reporter.

those "reporters" who shill for either the democrats or republicans reveal themselves as the whores they are fairly quickly.

demagogues can almost be instantly identified due to their constant appeals to emotion.(keith olbermans new youtube channel from GQ "the resistance" comes to mind).

and reporters who are simply bad or lazy are quickly revealed as well.by other reporters.

let's take @bcglorf review of chomsky,and how chomsky is singular in his constant criticism of american foreign policy and asks the question "why can't he,just for once,speak on the positives that america has done in the world,or speculate on what could have happened had american not intervened in third world country A or B".(paraphrased)

now this is not an entirely unfair question,and in chomsky's books..he does address the very specifics that bcglorf would like to see chomsky address,but in lectures you are lucky to get a sentence in regards to such subjects.

but notice that while bcglorf would like to see chomsky speak in more broad terms,he never once questions the veracity of the details chomsky is laying down.

do you know why?
because chomsky does his homework,and backs up everything he says.

bcglorf respects chomsky for this,while simultaneously wishing he changed the channel once in awhile.

bcglorf utilized discernment to come to the conclusion that chomsky is a worthy,if infuriating,read/listen.

i do not mean to be speaking for Bc,and maybe i am missing the mark by a long shot using him as an example (if i did,please forgive Bc).

but my basic point is that we ALL discriminate and discern using our own subjective tools,our experiences and ultimately our understandings.

the problem here,and it is the underlying message on this thread,is confirmation bias.

we all know about this,and this election cycle REALLY brought this up to the forefront.

what i find interesting,and always makes me giggle,is how people will point to the "mainstream media" as an outlet for:propaganda,fake news,biased and slanted news ..but..it is NEVER the news THEY consume.the news THEY consume is hard hitting journalism.

so when i see people dismiss a piece that may happen to be on a questionable outlet..i laugh..because MOST outlets are ALL questionable.

so yes my friend,it is up to us to discern what is valid and what is bullshit.secondary sources help.concrete,trackable sources help and discussing and talking with one another is probably the greatest help of all.

but if you reside in an echo chamber,and everybody is just smelling each other farts.then some information may come as a shock.

my faith dictates my politics.
i am a dissident,and a radical.
the dynamic is always "power vs powerlessness",and i am always on the side of the powerless.

so it should be no surprise that on my list are people such as chomsky or hedges.

because they criticize power.

Forgive me if I'm misunderstanding, but are you saying that complete, unbiased, factual reporting is the reader's responsibility to find and consume, not a reporter's responsibility to produce?
How would one even go about that without being an investigative reporter themselves? The fact checking and filtering needed to find factual unbiased complete information is a full time job, completely impossible for most people. IMO, when reporters are found to be "reporting" biased opinion that confuses fact with hyperbolic opinion it should be considered a crime against humanity and prosecuteable, not applauded and rewarded, or even tolerated, no matter what side of what issue they support.