The orignal post accuses The Information of publishing a false quote. The article you linked to looks like two authors having a factual and philosophical disagreement, carried out in the normal way. They're on opposite sides of a bright line.
I can see why you might think that but consider it from pg's pov. It is technically true to describe the incendiary passage in the Information's article as incorrect. pg never said what he is alleged to have said. If the information and implication were the same from what he actually said it would be no harm, no foul.
Given that pg was giving background information, not an interview and that his words were misquoted and stripped of context perhaps you can see why people have decided never to give the Information the benefit of the doubt ever again.
It was marketed as quality journalism but it's just Valleywag with a subscription.
Yeah. Most other places would get more slack, but when you big thing is "We are expensive in a market where everything else is free because WE ARE BETTER" and the time before first huge fuckup is counted in days, you lose a lot of that momentum.
That said, suddenly everyone is talking a hell of a lot about "The Information" -- so maybe it will end up being a huge win for them.
Suicide or brilliant marketing move, will be fun to watch.
