Ed Bott of "Ed Bott's Microsoft Report" takes issue with many of the blogger's who reported on this story (I'd assume he includes this blog in his "echo chamber" comment).  Here's a quote

OK, now go read the linked story from the Seattle Times. There’s not a word - not one word - about back doors or encryption. Sadly, the usual suspects in the Techmeme echo chamber are whipping the inaccuracy around the infield at major league speeds. CrunchGear says Microsoft has “developed a thumb drive that helps Johnny Law quickly extract information, encrypted or otherwise, from computers.” And Valleywag talks about “a USB dongle that plugs into a computer, bypasses any Windows passwords or encryption, and quickly downloads sensitive data such as your Web browsing history.”

and

In fact, if this rather unremarkable collection of Microsoft-developed hacker tools actually did contain anything new, I would certainly expect that the highly vocal security community would have said something. If there turned out to be a back door in BitLocker or any other form of encryption, the real experts would be publishing the results. But they haven’t said a thing, because there isn’t a story here.

Let’s see how long it takes for the corrections to begin appearing. I’m not holding my breath.

The problem is this: While Ed Bott rightfully "calls everyone out" for jumping to negative conclusions on limited facts he then takes the same limited facts and jumps to the opposite (positive) conclusion.  He even goes further by assuming Microsoft's COFEE is the equivalent of another tool on the market (again, based on no real evidence)...

For anyone who is ill-informed enough to think that these tools are going to land in the hands of bad guys, I have some bad news. They’re way ahead of you. The community-developed USB Switchblade has been around since at least September 2006. And as security expert Jesper Johansson points out, it has an impressive feature set:

In truth, Microsoft is vague on what exactly is in this device and their claims lead one to think there are "back doors" involved.  When they say that the device can retrieve password protected data off a PC in "as little as 20 minutes" they open themselves up to suspicion.  Especially as the maker of the system doing the password protection. 

As for corrections, I said this (bold added for this post)...

Microsoft's job when making an OS is to make it as secure as possible.  I, as a Microsoft customer, trust that they will do everything they can to make their system secure (as they claim to do).  The fact that they'd even build a device like this seems like a violation of that trust.  Especially since it seems they put hooks into the OS to facilitate its creation.

and I stand by it.  The logical conclusion based on the comments Microsoft had made was that Microsoft used their extensive knowledge of Windows (including the source code) to create this device and make it as effective as it is (for the record, Microsoft has since denied using any "back doors")

Finally, even if it doesn't contain a single piece of inside information I still take offense at Microsoft pointing out ways to crack my OS.  Again, it comes down to me as a customer putting faith in them as a software developer to do everything they can to boost my security (as opposed to circumventing it).  Creating a way to crack that security and giving it away as marketing is still very upsetting.

P.S.  Given how condescending Mr. Bott's post was I think I deserve some kind of karma credit for getting through this entire post without once using the phrase "poor man's Mary Jo Foley"

I'm not one who obsesses over my data privacy.  I mean, as far as my life goes...I like it...but to the outsider I suspect it would be pretty boring.  So if someone wants to snoop on me I really don't care.

But even I found this a tad disturbing...

Microsoft has developed a small plug-in device that investigators can use to quickly extract forensic data from computers that may have been used in crimes.

The COFEE, which stands for Computer Online Forensic Evidence Extractor, is a USB "thumb drive" that was quietly distributed to a handful of law-enforcement agencies last June. Microsoft General Counsel Brad Smith described its use to the 350 law-enforcement experts attending a company conference Monday.

The device contains 150 commands that can dramatically cut the time it takes to gather digital evidence, which is becoming more important in real-world crime, as well as cybercrime. It can decrypt passwords and analyze a computer's Internet activity, as well as data stored in the computer.

It also eliminates the need to seize a computer itself, which typically involves disconnecting from a network, turning off the power and potentially losing data. Instead, the investigator can scan for evidence on site.

For the record, "Forensic Data" translates to "All Your Personal Information"

I honestly don't have an issue with Law Enforcement having access to this sort of thing.  They have the right to obtain the data anyway so this just seems like an easy way for them to get what they need.  If anything, it saves me money as a tax payer.

But I do have a couple issues here...

1.  Though I understand why the Government would want a device like this I think its irresponsible for Microsoft to provide it.  Microsoft's job when making an OS is to make it as secure as possible.  I, as a Microsoft customer, trust that they will do everything they can to make their system secure (as they claim to do).  The fact that they'd even build a device like this seems like a violation of that trust.  Especially since it seems they put hooks into the OS to facilitate its creation. 

2.  My understanding is that this is no bigger than a thumb drive which makes me certain at least one will fall into the wrong hands.  Given that I don't see why they didn't make it bigger and harder to steal.  Particularly since, despite what the original article says, the police have to seize the PC anyway (to maintain a chain of evidence) so portability isn't an issue.

To me, this is the best argument I've seen for Open Source in a while.  If Microsoft is inclined to put hooks into its OS which allow for the quick bypassing of the system's security I'd at least like to know.  The fact that they felt the need to, as the article says, "quietly" distribute this says to me that they knew I'd want to know and specifically took steps to hide it from me. 

That bothers me.

As a Microsoft customer I think their responsibility is to me not to law enforcement.  The fact that they don't see it that way makes a pretty compelling argument for systems with source that is open for everyone to see.

Addendum: Since I’ve already gotten two e-mails on this I wanted to clarify something.  When I said…

“Particularly since, despite what the original article says, the police have to seize the PC anyway”

I was taking that from a friend who is an assistant District Attorney (and who I IMed while writing the post)

This is conceptually pretty simple.  The cops can use this device and get all your files but they aren’t going to go over each file right then and there.  Since there’s no ruling in existence saying this Microsoft device is admissible in place of the computer itself the cops have to take the computer with them.  Otherwise you could erase the files between when the cops used the device and when they came back to actually confiscate the computer.

Part of the problem with the blogosphere, or at least my place in the blogoshpere, is that the response isn't exactly evenly spread.  Most posts won't get a response from other bloggers and then suddenly there are 30 people responding to one specific post and you can't keep up with it all.  That said, I do try to read anyone who responds to a post I make and in doing that I found this post from Bill at The Measurement Standard...

I'm amazed at how many people love Loren Feldman's sock puppet satires of social media guy Shel Israel. And I notice a number of people respond very favorably to Drama 2.0's criticism of Shel and Jeremiah Owyang and Kami Huyse's rollercoaster research.

Is it just me, or is there some kind of backlash against social media? If the sock puppets are just satire, as Tom'sTechBlog claims, why is the satire so well received? Are people responding to the over-hyped world of 2.0 by being just a little too hard on some of its promulgators? --Bill Paarlberg

First let me say that I don't think there's a backlash against Social Media.   The backlash here, it seems to me, is against bad consultants.   

You see, there are two kinds of consultants.

The "Type 1" consultants are the good guys.  They have backgrounds in a serious discipline like statistics or anthropology and they painstakingly go over tons of data so they know what they're talking about.  Those guys are worth paying because they can tell you not just how to use technology but how to get the desired result.

"Type 2" are the guys who act like knowing what technology is and using it yourself makes you qualified to consult on it.  These are the modern day con men whose success is related almost entirely to their charm.  They buddy up to companies that are completely clueless and convince those companies to pay money to be taught how to use technology.  An education that most Jr. High students could probably provide. 

The difference between these two types is simple. 

The Type 1's will be able to give you solid estimates as to what using technology will accomplish while the Type 2's will simply tell say you need to use it.  So while Type 2's say things like "use Twitter because its the way of the future" I've actually met Type 1 consultants that could tell how much your sales would go up if you put a pretty girl in your commercial as opposed to a good looking guy. 

The difference is all in being able to forecast some kind of result.

The Backlash is against the Type 2 Consultants

If you read the post entitled "Drama 2.0's criticism of Shel and Jeremiah Owyang", alluded to above, you'll see one basic sentiment repeated over and over which is "This guy doesn't know any more than I do"

THAT is what people are annoyed with and THAT is what people are lashing out at.  Consultants who don't seem to know anything more than your average Internet user but who go around calling themselves "Social Media Experts".  That is also why Loren Feldman strikes such a chord with his Shel-Puppet.  Because the Shel-Puppet embodies what almost everyone is already thinking. 

I wouldn't call myself an expert in Social Media, I don't think most other people would either.  But on a  basic level I think we know what Social Media is well enough to discredit would be experts.

The Truth about Social Media is that its about People not Technology

Social Media is essentially "marketing + feedback" which means being able to convince people of something and then interact with those people.  In order to do that you need to be an expert at dealing with people which is where Shel Israel went wrong.

In regards to the whole Israel/Feldman incident try taking it off the Internet for a second.  Say you are at a party with Shel Israel and Loren Feldman.  Feldman makes fun of Israel and, rather than laughing it off, Israel storms out of the room and then tells everyone the next day that he's going to sue Feldman for mocking him. 

At that point, even those who agree with him are going to think he's an idiot.  Not knowing that shows some extremely poor people skills on his part and that's why there is a backlash against Mr. Israel.  He discredited himself and by doing so made himself the poster child for bad consulting. 

Which is sort of the point.  If Mr. Israel was actually an expert in Social Media then a backlash against him would equate to a backlash against Social Media.  But he's not which means the backlash is only against him and against the type of consultant he's perceived to be. 

Social Media, at least for the moment, remains in the clear.

Apple is a very rigid company from the Software Development side.

Unlike Microsoft who chooses to open Windows to any language out there Apple endorses only one language and that is Objective-C.  As far as Apple is concerned that is how you develop applications for the Mac. 

As you might expect, Apple made the same decision for the iPhone's SDK.  A decision that Simon Brocklehurst questions the wisdom of...

Recently, Apple bowed to the inevitable, and has released an SDK for developer testing.   The language they chose to base the SDK around is Objective-C.   This wasn’t a complete surprise - after all, it’s the “native” language of Mac OS X.  However, while it’s not a surprise, I wonder if it’s not a major strategic error on Apple’s part.   The point is this: the Mac is a niche platform, and is especially niche in terms of numbers of developers building applications in Objective-C.    Compare that to iPhone, which because of its technological lead, has the chance to become a major volume player in the mobile phone space.   If Apple wants iPhone to succeed, it seems strange to attempt to force developers to use an unpopular language for programming it. That  isn’t the way to win - developers have many, many choices of platforms they can spend time developing for.

He then goes on to quote a chart which shows Objective-C placing #38 in popularity among programmers.  All leading to the question: Did Apple make the right choice by using Objective-C?

My answer, of course they did. 

In fact, they made the choice that will probably save the platform in the long run.  You see, developers can be a greedy lot.  They'll often port their application to every phone available in order to maximize their profit.  This is easy to do since most phones support Java natively but leads to lousy applications because almost no thought was put into each individual phone.  So you get an application base for those phones that is polluted with half breeds that don't look or work right.

Apple can't allow that to happen to the iPhone. 

The iPhone is all about user experience.  Try to imagine an iPhone application where Multi-Touch isn't supported and you'll see what I mean.  The platform demands consistency, anything less would risk tainting the whole experience for the user.

By limiting developers to Objective-C Apple forces them to write applications specifically for the iPhone.  This draws iPhone specific developers to the platform who will preserve the user experience and give Apple the consistency they need. 

So Objective-C is really the barrier against anyone wanting to make a few bucks off a badly ported Java Application. 

This will limit the iPhone's application base but Apple clearly prefers a few high quality applications over an army of mediocre ones.  That attitude will probably prevent them from ever being featured as the free phone in a sign-up offer but I doubt that was what they wanted anyway.  The Apple brand stands for something better than that.

Most of the responses I got to my last post were some variation of "If you're so smart, what would you do better?"  So I thought I'd give an answer to that.

I'd honestly make just one simple change.  If I were Microsoft, I'd have focused on my developers and my users not on myself.  Because the services themselves are fine its how they are grouped that presents the problem. 

Mesh is all about Microsoft.  A Mesh application will install through Mesh, need Mesh to run, connect over Mesh, be accessed via the Mesh flyout, and will store its data in Mesh repositories.  Applications essentially become Mesh plug-ins more than individual applications and that's a problem for me.

As I've said before, Web services should exist to empower the developer not the company behind the service. 

But in Mesh's case Microsoft holds all the cards.  They own the data, they control the authentication, they serve as the gatekeeper to the user, and they are the ones who stand to reap all the benefits.  Basically the user pays the developer a small fee and is then handed over to Microsoft. 

Compare that to Amazon whose services are completely transparent.  There's no way to even tell which applications use Amazon without seeing the source code?  If you go to the SmugMug website do you see any indication that they're running on top of Amazon?  No.  Because Amazon empowers its developers instead of using those developers to try to empower themselves. 

So that's my problem with Mesh and that is what I would have changed.  I would have created a bunch of great services and competed on their quality alone.  Had Microsoft done that rather than try to tie developers to some grand Microsoft-centric vision I think a lot of Mesh services would have been adopted by developers.

But using Mesh now would just be handing Microsoft another monopoly and it isn't compelling enough to justify that. 

P.S.  I expect this to be my last Mesh post for a while, just so you don't think the blog has changed formats or anything :)

I want to love Mesh.  I want to be part of the echo chamber that praises Ray Ozzie's grand vision of the future and ignores all the obvious reasons why it will never happen.  I really do. 

Because honestly, I feel alone out here.  Even Mary Jo Foley, usually as honest a Microsoft critic as you can get, seems to be praising it (even while in the same post producing a list which seems to highlight just how mundane a project it is)

So I've compiled my own list.  A list of all the things that would be required to happen for Mesh to even come close to succeeding.  Can someone please tell me why I'm off base? 

Because I don't see it and if I'm right about all of the below then Mesh stands almost no chance of success. 

What's Required

Requires Every IT Company In the World to Accept Another Microsoft Platform

When Microsoft released Office 2007 they created an open Office Format to use.  They submitted this open format to a standards body.  They sucked up to the community to get it accept.  What happend?  No one but them adopted it and everyone from Governments to individual users gave them grief. 

If Microsoft can't even get people to embrace open formats that they create what makes them think companies are going to rush to a platform that allows them to lock-in and control the user through their data?  If you were Apple, Sony, et al. wouldn't you be looking to put every imaginable road block in front of this. 

Requires Each Hardware Platform to Give Microsoft Full Control

Microsoft's vision is to give users the power to manager their devices from anywhere.  That goal is a worth while one.  But for it to be accomplished Microsoft has to get vendors like Sony and Apple to give full control of their OS to Microsoft.  That's simply not going to happen.  Steve Jobs is not going to give Microsoft the ability to control a Mac or an iPhone.  Its just never going to happen. 

Same with Sony and the PS3.  There's no way they are going to give Microsoft that much control over their system.

Requires Security Minded People to Accept Tons of Document Copies

The rule I was always taught about data was that it becomes exponentially less secure with every copy that exists.  Because every copy that exists means a whole new computer to secure which in turn means that not only do you have to consider every security issue that you did with the original copy but you also have to consider all the security issues raised by the transmission of the data between the two systems.  So what I need explained is how you are going to get any security minded person or agency to accept a system where users can create new copies of every one of their documents with just the click of a button. 

Requires Security Minded People to Accept Live ID

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but to the best of my knowledge there were no egregious technical problems with Microsoft Passport. The problem boiled down to people not wanting to have Microsoft as their identity broker.  Given that why would they turn around and accept a Live ID in the exact same capacity.

{For the Record, Microsoft says it will "look into" support for OpenID but given the architecture they've outlined I personally can't see how that would be possible}

Requires Developers to Embrace a Completely Different Paradigm

Again please correct me if I'm wrong but from everything I know or have been told most developers have moved to web based applications at this point.  I'd say 95% of the computer books on the market address web based development now.  Web based development has been considered the way of the future for some time. 

But web based development is a completely different paradigm than Desktop development.  So for Mesh to realize its potential those developers are going to have to do a complete 180 degree turn to support desktop development instead of web based development.  Does this seem likely to anyone?

Requires Developers to Create an Application For Every Platform

As of right now, Microsoft has not introduced any Adobe Air like system that would allow developers to write one application and then deploy it on every platform.  No where has that even been stated as a goal.  In fact, I suspect part of Mesh's goal is to draw people back to Windows so I honestly don't think that is one of Microsoft's goals.

So to support the "Mesh Vision" developers would have to write a different version of their application for every different platform.  That means learning different development environments, languages, APIs, etc...  Does this seem practical to anyone?  Wouldn't writing one web app be preferable instead? 

Requires Developers to Surrender All Lock-Ins To Microsoft

Though I wish it was not so the reality is that many developers build lock-ins as a way to maintain their user base.  That's why you can't get your data out of Facebook for example.  For the "Mesh Vision" to work developers must essentially surrender all those lock-ins to Microsoft.  That means storing your contacts in their cloud using their format, using their news feed again in their format, syncing your data using...wait for it...their format, and so on. 

I have to admit, this is one of those things that I think would be better for the consumer but I can't see developers doing it.  Its just too much to give up to Microsoft.

Requires Developers to Create Local Data Repositories

This is one of those cases where I have to assume Microsoft is working on a solution for the problem.  But since one hasn't been announced I have to raise the issue just the same.

Most applications work on database back ends.  That means, if you have to sync your application, you either have to load a personal edition of SQL onto each client PC or devise a local data repository to hold database information.  Under either scenario its a lot of work for the developer which creates yet another roadblock to developer adoption of Mesh.

Requires Users To Take Charge of Their IT Destiny

This is a big one that is completely missed by the "Tech Elite" because they aren't thinking of the average user.  The average user doesn't want to have to control their own destiny.  They want everything pre-configured for them so they can jump on, get whatever work they have to do completed, and get off.  Mesh gives the power to the user but in most cases I don't think that's power the user wants. 

Requires Users To Buy Software Licenses For Each Device

This is one of those things that you won't hear mentioned until it's actually time to buy the software but I doubt anyone, including Microsoft, is going to change the rules of software licensing just for Mesh.  That means an additional license for each one of those Mesh devices if you want to actually be able to USE your data on them.  That's a lot of money for the consumer. 

Requires Users To Open Up Their Home Life to The World

Ever have a nosey fellow employee?  Imagine if that nosey fellow employee could search through your personal computer when you went to get coffee from the kitchen.  Is there anything you wouldn't want them to see?  Having your data persist everywhere without requiring a password (beyond an initial log on) isn't always a good thing.

Beyond that, this also requires loading all your files into the cloud with no guarantee as to what will happen.  It isn't like Microsoft hasn't folded to people like the record industry before.  What is to stop them from scanning your "cloud drive" for illegal music? 

{For the Record, I doubt they would.  But I also don't see them guaranteeing they won't}

Requires Users To Care

Beyond Power Users, who asked for this?  As someone who runs an IT department for an organization full of normal people I can tell you they like it when they can't work.  They don't want to carry their work everywhere with them, they don't want to work on a plane, overall they enjoy any respite from the computer that they can get. 

Even remote access is generally forced on them by their boss.  But Mesh seems to think that consumers will not only embrace this but will be so enthusiastic about it that they will overcome all the many factors pushing against it. 

Maybe I'm just too much of a skeptic but I personally don't see that happening.

So hmmmmm....

Before going any further I'd like to remind you that this is not a pre-written post.  I learned about this an hour ago and these are my initial thoughts.  Things might look completely different in the morning.

Though...I doubt it.  The quick snippit is that Microsoft Mesh, for right now, is just a sync-able desktop.  Sign Up for a Mesh account, add several computers, store all your stuff in local "Mesh Folders" and everything syncs up nicely.  That's about it for now. 

But the real promise of this is the SDK.  As Scoble put it...

We haven’t even gotten into the developer SDK. They spent about an hour showing me how to build new kinds of syncable apps on top of the Mesh in a variety of tools.

Now you’re just getting a taste of how Microsoft is going to use the Mesh to stay relevant. It is bringing its developers onto the Internet in an interesting new way.

So this is Microsoft's strategy for the future, sync based apps built around Feedsync feeds.  My initial thoughts...

Lock-In: A big part of me feels like this is Microsoft trying to devise another way to lock everyone in.  Like they are trying to replace Windows with the cloud rather than just provide a great service.

A Whole Lot of Effort for Developers: For a Developer the question is this: You can build one Online App.  Or you can build One Adobe Air App.  Or you can go with Microsoft and build an App for each and every platform out there all based around Microsoft's Sync technology.  So my question is, why would I go with Microsoft?

A Whole Lot of Files for Users: So lets say I buy into Microsoft's grand vision, sync everything up, and carry a copy of everything on each one of my devices.  Doesn't that mean I have 20 copies of files to worry about now?  If I forget to delete my old computer from my Mesh account do my files still float around on that PC?  Continuing to update while now in the hands of others?  This system seems awfully insecure.  Its true that users should be careful about leaving files on old computers but one lesson I've learned as a developer is never to trust the user to act in the ideal way.

Not Much Gain For Anyone (But Microsoft): I think my main problem with this is that it seems like an initiative that is "strategy based" and not "user based".  Its designed to pull the focus back to the desktop.  But with connections getting faster and web based technology getting more interactive why would I revert back to a desktop model?  In a constantly connected world do I really want my files residing on every computer I touch? 

Obviously I'm going to keep a very close eye on this but right now it seems profoundly uncompelling.  Almost like Microsoft made a checklist of their desires (lock people to a platform, put the focus back on desktop computing, etc...) and built a product around that without much thought given to the user. 

I'm a Microsoft Developer, my platform of choice is ASP.NET, my language of choice is C#, and I find this completely uninteresting.  If that's the case how on Earth does Microsoft plan to convince those hostile towards them to come over? 

I made a vow from the beginning of this blog not to cover or even mention politics (I still need to make a post on the reasons for that).  But the truth is I'm fascinated by the topic.  I've always been interested in anything that involves strategic thinking and politics is the very definition of that.  So while I may not mention it I do keep my on on that world.

While I was switching between CNN, Fox News and MSNBC tonight one of the CNN commentators said something fascinating to me.  Something that fell more in the realm of tech than it did in politics which is why I decided to post it.

She theorized that the tide was turning against Obama and she based that on tracking from Yahoo that indicated most Clinton searches were on policy issues while most Obama searches were related to various scandals.  I don't know if her assumption is true but its fascinating to think about search engines as a political gauge.  If you think about it, since an IP addresses can be traced back to its general area of origin search results could prove to be one of the most powerful indicators in a Politician's arsenal.

A politician could check various search results and tell exactly what their weaknesses are not only in the country but in a state, congressional district or even individual neighborhood.  They could literally use that information to target speeches to individual campaign events by checking search results within 5 or 10 miles of the event itself.  It could very well become the most powerful statistic available to them.

I wonder if any of the candidates have tried to get their hands on that info yet.  If they haven't, they probably should.

I don't use Twitter but I know a lot of people who do and the blogosphere covers it pretty extensively so I know about the problems they've had over the weekend. 

Today they finally made a post on the official Twitter Blog about these problems...

We're aware of this, we realize that it's annoying, and we're meeting today about how to best finish up this project and clean up any remaining bugs. Thanks to everyone who checked in with us on Satisfaction, @replies, and email over the weekend. Overall, completing this memcache project is a big win that will lead to increased stability.

The most important lesson I've learned in IT isn't a technical one it's a social one. 

Always say you're sorry!

Even if you aren't sure you're at fault its better to say your sorry than to not.  Do NOT under ANY CIRCUMSTANCE try to paint it as if you're suffering with your user.  Saying "we realize that it's annoying" is like the plumber who flooded your kitchen making a joke about giving you an indoor pool. 

Its important to remember that no one is going to "call you on it" if you don't apologize.  What they will do is silently resent you and, as that resentment festers, judge you more harshly in the future.  There's a reason pride is considered the worst of the seven deadly sins.

People want to be respected and people like to forgive.  Ask their forgiveness and you'll almost certainly get it.  They'll probably like you more for being humble.  Letting foolish pride or lack of empathy create resentment between you and  your user is a big mistake that can be easily avoided.  Isn't it worth the two simple words?

Scott Karp posted a real "eye roller" of a post today suggesting that the problem of too much noise on the web should be solved by people not posting as much.  Here's the quote from his article called "Join The Web Content Conservation Movement"...

On the web, everyone can publish — which means we have more content than all the people consuming content on the web can possibly consume.

How did we deal with excesses from technology that damaged the environment? By starting a conservation movement. Remember those stickers encouraging you to turn out the lights?

So why not start a conservation movement on the web?

Next time you’re about to post something to your blog, or Twitter, or Flickr, or YouTube, or any of the 1,000 other publishing platforms, ask yourself this — does this really add value to the web? Or am I publishing just because I can?

That logic leads him to these conclusions

• Filtering the web instead of adding to the content noise works well for Google’s business
• Links are cheaper to produce
• Linking is a way for media companies to show their environmental responsibility on the web

I barely know where to begin here.

First, just because everyone CAN produce content does not mean everyone WILL produce content.  In fact, as any one who has ever run a blog or message board will tell you the majority of visitors prefer not to comment.  So making the jump that there will always be more content than people can possibly consume is kind of silly.

Second, who is to say that every piece of information doesn't add value to the web.  I've read tons of stories where people connect with an old friend via twitter and are elated to know the mundane details of that person's life.  So does that long lost friend's tweet about where he ate lunch add value to the web?  To at least one person it does.  So comparing that content to pollution is a flawed comparison because pollution isn't good for anyone where as random tweets always add value for someone.

Third, advising people to "link instead of write" isn't advice that anyone can realistically follow.   Professional sites like TechCrunch and ReadWriteWeb cover the same content but they also have unique readers who they can't just hand over to a competitors site.  A link is not cheaper to produce if it costs you a reader and that's exactly what each site would be risking if they simply stopped covering some stories.  Even if they didn't lose readers they'd be giving up ad revenue by losing half their page views. 

Finally, I strongly object to the idea that not posting on a story makes media companies "environmentally responsible"  I'm sorry but there aren't that many people who care that different news sites cover the same story.  In fact, if a news site chose to just link to another site's coverage I'd probably think less of them not more.  Their job is to cover the news not act as a aggregator. 

I don't want ReadWriteWeb or TechCrunch trying to be Google because I already have Google for that.  I want them out there covering the story and preserving my right to choose which coverage I decide to read.  It isn't their job to solve your information overload problem.